From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58434) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VF752-0001nN-1G for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:36:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VF74v-0007B2-FR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:36:27 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:4421) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VF74v-0007AR-86 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:36:21 -0400 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7TIaKah005399 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:36:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:36:18 -0400 From: Luiz Capitulino Message-ID: <20130829143618.50c1f8a9@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <521F7EA2.90303@redhat.com> References: <1374584606-5615-1-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <1374584606-5615-3-git-send-email-kwolf@redhat.com> <20130821033805.GA7028@amosk.info> <20130827155859.GP648@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> <20130829095247.526626e5@redhat.com> <20130829160650.GA2435@dhcp-200-207.str.redhat.com> <20130829123315.63432366@redhat.com> <521F7EA2.90303@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/18] qapi-types.py: Implement 'base' for unions List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: Kevin Wolf , Amos Kong , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:02:26 -0600 Eric Blake wrote: > On 08/29/2013 10:33 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote: > > >>> > >>> Strange, it appears on your pull request... But anyway, your series > >>> made it into 1.6.0, so I think we'll need the missing patch in 1.6.1 too? > >> > >> There's no user in 1.6 (or would we have a build failure) because I > >> didn't merge blockdev-add, so I guess it doesn't matter. > > > > I won't say it's a huge deal, but any downstreamers basing on 1.6 will > > have a hard time if they backport blockdev-add or any future command > > that my depend on this. > > Any downstreamers that plans to backport blockdev-add would also > backport this as part of their efforts. I don't see that as any > different from any other backport effort that includes requiring > multiple non-contiguous pre-req patches. Backport work can be hard. I'd praise people for making it easier for me and would curse people for making it harder for no reason. > We don't need it on the 1.6 > stable tree, and downstream is no worse for the wear. Why is the feature there in the first place then?