From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NMl6a-0002tw-84
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:27:32 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NMl6U-0002tC-Sk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:27:31 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37763 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NMl6U-0002t9-Nj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:27:26 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46646)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1NMl6U-0005fU-DZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:27:26 -0500
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 18:24:39 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20091221162439.GA10153@redhat.com>
References: <20091220114812.GA15588@redhat.com> <4B2E3649.30803@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4B2E3649.30803@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: stable-0.12 versus master branching?
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 08:35:53AM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> I am really confused wrt stable 0.12 branching policy.
>> For example I see this, in master:
>>
>> 	commit d587e0787153f0224a6140c5015609963ceaabfb
>> 	Author: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
>> 	Date:   Mon Dec 14 11:36:53 2009 -0600
>>
>> 	    Revert "pci: interrupt disable bit support"
>>
>> 	    This reverts commit 0ea5709a32085f7d14901a09d12bd35f9b267607.
>>
>> 	    Per discussion with Michael Tsirkin, this is too risky for 0.12
>>
>> 	    Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
>>
>> (this was cherry-picked in stable-0.12 as well).
>> From the comment, this revert makes sense for stable-0.12
>> but not for master.  Is this an attempt to keep stable and master
>> as close as possible? I expected master development to proceed while
>> stable-0.12 would get just bugfixes. No?
>>   
>
> It was a mistake.  I've already got it recommitted in master.  Just need  
> to push.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>
>> Thanks,
>>

I see. So I think we should revert
f9bf77dd1f838b0061172fe41709b221956da2f5
on stable-0.12 as well: interrupt disable and interrupt
status appeared in the same spec revision,
so it might surprise guests to see one but not the other.

-- 
MST