Re: [PATCH] devtools: list stable commits do not have fixline

[Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>]

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:00:07AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 28/04/2017 10:27, Yuanhan Liu:
> > On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 10:15:46AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 28/04/2017 09:21, Yuanhan Liu:
> > > > Some commits for stable releases (with Cc stable tag) may not have the
> > > > fixline. For example:
> > > >     http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/23955/
> > > > 
> > > > It disables a feature we have implemented in last release. The feature
> > > > is done right. It's the QEMU implementaton being buggy, that we have to
> > > > disable it to workaround those buggy QEMU releases (v2.7 - v2.9). Without
> > > > such workaround, QEMU won't start when queue number >= 2.
> > > > 
> > > > That said, we also have to backport it to stable releases, though there
> > > > is no fixline (there was no DPDK bug to fix after all).
> > > 
> > > How do we know where should it be backported?
> > 
> > Good question. As a stable maintainer, I may not know. But the developer
> > should know. For such case, he may add something like:
> > 
> > 	Cc: stable@dpdk.org # for v17.02+
> 
> It breaks backport semi-automation.

But it should be (easily) fixed.

> > It's a trick used widely in kernel and QEMU community.
> > 
> > > It is fixing a bug with a correct implementation because of
> > > a buggy dependency. But it is still a bug.
> > > So I think we should put a Fixes: line.
> > 
> > I don't have strong objection to this. It just doesn't make too much
> > sense to me: there is no bug in the DPDK implementation after all.
> > 
> > But if you insist, I'm okay with it.
> 
> Yes I insist :)
> It is fixing code to work with some dependencies.

Okay.

Besides, okay to merge this patch? As you stated, it does no harm.

	--yliu