From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58104) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uceb0-0004AT-Vk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 May 2013 12:30:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Uceay-0005xU-CY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 May 2013 12:30:30 -0400 Sender: fluxion Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 11:25:29 -0500 From: mdroth Message-ID: <20130515162529.GB17718@vm> References: <1368568392-2127-1-git-send-email-mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20130515140928.GB15980@rox.home.comstyle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130515140928.GB15980@rox.home.comstyle.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Patch Round-up for stable 1.4.2, freeze on Monday List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Brad Smith Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-stable@nongnu.org On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:09:32AM -0400, Brad Smith wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 04:52:57PM -0500, Michael Roth wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > The following new patches are queued for QEMU stable v1.4.2: > > > > https://github.com/mdroth/qemu/commits/stable-1.4-staging > > > > The release is planned for 05-24-2013: > > > > http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/1.4 > > > > Please CC qemu-stable@nongnu.org on any patches you think should be > > included in the release. The cut-off date is 05-20-2013 for new patches. > > > > Testing/feedback is greatly appreciated. > > This patch is missing from the 1.4 branch.. > > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-stable/2013-04/msg00069.html Sorry, didn't think to re-check for patches that came in during 1.4.1 freeze. I'm also missing: "qemu-timer: move timeBeginPeriod/timeEndPeriod to os-win32" but there are some conflicts I need to look at. I have you patch queued locally, but can you respond to that thread with your SoB before I push it? > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. >