From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:34468) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGkTa-0006Yz-Oe for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 02:24:59 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGkTR-00025o-Lf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 02:24:50 -0500 Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.138]:42952) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGkTR-00025Z-G7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 02:24:41 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e8.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 21 Feb 2014 02:24:40 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Michael Roth In-Reply-To: <530365DD.908@redhat.com> References: <1392647854-8067-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <53025C08.2030207@redhat.com> <5302B11F.1070400@suse.de> <53033261.7020100@suse.de> <5303411A.5080601@redhat.com> <530355AB.5020002@suse.de> <530365DD.908@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20140221072435.20750.73882@loki> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 01:24:35 -0600 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [PATCH 0/3] ARM: three easy patches for coverity-reported issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini , =?utf-8?q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= , Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers , qemu-stable , Patch Tracking Quoting Paolo Bonzini (2014-02-18 07:53:33) > Il 18/02/2014 13:44, Andreas F=C3=A4rber ha scritto: > >> > There isn't really a standard criterion. It's up to each maintainer= to > >> > be stricter or looser on what goes to stable. > > The criteria is pretty simple: Was the breakage in the last release > > already or was it introduced only intermittently. > = > You haven't defined breakage; what breakage deserves a change in a = > stable release. Some interpret it as regression, some as "any bug", = > some as "any crash bug", and so on. Personally I think it's fair to punt that determination to the stable maintainers: if it's a bug that existed in a previous release, however mino= r, and you or someone else cares enough to cc: qemu-stable about, it's a reasonable *candidate* for consideration. Factors like whether it breaks guest ABI, migration compatibility, is too r= isky a backport, etc, should be considered, but if unsure it's fine to punt to s= table and let the filtering happen there. If it's rejected/problematic stable sho= uld provide a response/reason and the discussion can go from there. Perhaps this may need to be revisited in the future if traffic to qemu-stab= le becomes unwieldly but I don't think we're there yet. > = > Paolo