From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: qemu and qemu.git -> Migration + disk stress introduces qcow2 corruptions Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 12:20:25 +0200 Message-ID: <4EBE4869.8060401@redhat.com> References: <4EBAAA68.10801@redhat.com> <4EBAACAF.4080407@codemonkey.ws> <4EBAB236.2060409@redhat.com> <4EBAB9FA.3070601@codemonkey.ws> <4EBB919B.7040605@redhat.com> <4EBC0FC9.6030301@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Lucas Meneghel Rodrigues , Kevin Wolf , KVM mailing list , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcelo Tosatti , QEMU devel , Juan Jose Quintela Carreira To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4EBC0FC9.6030301@codemonkey.ws> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 11/10/2011 07:54 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> IMO, this should be a release blocker. qemu 1.0 only supporting >> migration on enterprise storage? > > > No, this is not going to block the release. > > You can't dump patches on the ML during -rc for an issue that has been > understood for well over a year simply because it's release time. > > If this was so important, it should have been fixed a year ago in the > proper way. Nor can you yank support for migration this way. Might as well put a big sign on 1.0, "Do Not Use This Release". Making formal plans and sticking to them is great, but not to the point of ignoring reality. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.