From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46195 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PlSoQ-00073U-P1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:03:27 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PlSoM-0006CF-8R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:03:26 -0500 Received: from mail-yx0-f173.google.com ([209.85.213.173]:62009) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PlSoM-0006By-63 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:03:22 -0500 Received: by yxl31 with SMTP id 31so1237364yxl.4 for ; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 13:03:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] New stable branch information From: "Justin M. Forbes" In-Reply-To: <20110204192629.GA10125@volta.aurel32.net> References: <4D4BF036.3050005@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20110204192629.GA10125@volta.aurel32.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:48:32 -0600 Message-ID: <1296852512.4284.1.camel@fedora64.linuxtx.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Aurelien Jarno Cc: Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 20:26 +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 06:25:26AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > To help make the stable branch more active than it has been in the > > past, I'd like to split the stable branch into a separate tree to > > allow the tree to develop a life of its own over time. > > > > I'd like to begin this process with 0.14 and as such, have created a > > new stable tree at git://git.qemu.org/qemu-stable-0.14.git. > > > > Justin Forbes has volunteered to help collect patches for this tree. > > The same stable rules still apply: patches should go into master > > first except for rare exceptions where that's feasible. > > > > I think this kind of job is more than just collecting patches, it also > means following the development, to identify patches that may apply to > stable, possibly asking the authors their opinion if the patch should be > applied to stable. Absolutely, though it is also very helpful if the maintainers let us know when they think a patch needs to be in stable as well. Justin