From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yang Hongyang Subject: Re: Request a freeze exception for Libxl Migration v2 in 4.6 Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:35:59 +0800 Message-ID: <55A5D51F.70905@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <55A3EF4D.80605@citrix.com> <21924.58606.509426.702646@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <21925.6416.404512.389094@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <21925.6416.404512.389094@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Jackson , Andrew Cooper , Wei Liu , Xen-devel List , Ian Campbell , Wen Congyang , Shriram Rajagopalan List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/14/2015 10:13 PM, Ian Jackson wrote: > Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Request a freeze exception for Libxl Migration v2 in 4.6"): >> Andrew Cooper writes ("Request a freeze exception for Libxl Migration v2 in 4.6"): >>> I would like to request a freeze exception for libxl migration v2. >>> >>> v3 of the series was posted this morning, and review seems to indicate >>> that it is mostly on track. I hope to have v4 ready to post tomorrow, >>> and hope to have no further adjustments required. >> >> Wei asked me for input and I thought it best to reply by email. > > The series is now fully acked and there are only two things stopping > it going in right away: > > * The need for a freeze exception which has not yet been granted. > > * We have a bug report about it breaking Remus. This is being > investigated. My view as maintainer is that this should not be a > blocker to committing this series, because: > > - This series is itself a prerequisite for Colo work, which > is being promoted by many of the same people as Remus. > > - I have confidence that this bug will be resolved early during > the freeze. In particular I have confidence (based on past > performance) that the bug-hunt will be thorough, and that the > submitter of this v2 migration series will quickly take > responsibility and develop necessary fixes. Agreed, having investigated the bug, I know where it is, it can be fixed after you push the series, I will propose a patch to fix this. > > I would like to get a confirmation from a Remus maintainer that they > are happy with this approach: that is, to commit now, and fix later. > > But after getting that confirmation, if it weren't for the freeze I > would now be pushing this series to staging. > > > Arguments in favour of the exception: > > * The series is a prerequisite for other important work (notably > Colo), and even if that other work misses 4.6, we want to make as > much progress as possible. > > * This series is cleanup work, rather than new functionality; we hope > it will improve the release's long-term maintainability and > quality. > > * The code quality of the initial non-RFC v1 was very high. > > * Without this series we will, for another release, have an > entirely-unexercised set of `v2 migration' code at the libxc layer. > > * The series is now in good shape and only 3 working days late. > > Arguments against: > > * We are switching between implementations of a major piece of > functionality. > > > I would recommend granting an exception, subject to two conditions: > > * Confirmation from a Remus maintainer that they would prefer this > series to go in now, and be fixed later, despite the probable > existence of a Remus-related bug. > > * That the series should be committed today or tomorrow. > > Thanks, > Ian. > . > -- Thanks, Yang.