From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54773)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1WYGrR-0002pI-7P
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:25:59 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1WYGrJ-0002rR-FE
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:25:53 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43597)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1WYGrJ-0002rI-7c
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 10 Apr 2014 11:25:45 -0400
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 18:26:23 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20140410152623.GF21110@redhat.com>
References: <CAFEAcA_HW3wKJLDJaFC=HU6pQebmnbO8N2-7gJH8FXbQszw-yg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA_HW3wKJLDJaFC=HU6pQebmnbO8N2-7gJH8FXbQszw-yg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Should we have a 2.0-rc3 ?
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@amazon.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Andreas =?iso-8859-1?Q?F=E4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>

On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:17:55PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> So far I know of at least three fixes which should probably
> go into 2.0:
>  * my fix for the configure stack-protector checks on MacOSX
>  * MST's pull request updating the ACPI test blobs
>  * MST says we need to update the hex files for ACPI too
>    (otherwise you get a different ACPI blob depending on whether
>     your build system had iasl or not, if I understand correctly)
> 
> Are there any others?

If we do rc3 anyway, maybe
[PATCH 1/2] pci-assign: Fix a bug when map MSI-X table memory failed
which is an error-handling bugfix.

I'd like Alex to weight in about this one though.


> So we have two choices:
> 
> (A) get those fixes into git today, and tag an rc3; that
> would then need some testing time and presumably we'd hope
> to tag it as the 2.0 release on Monday or Tuesday next week
> 
> (B) say that the above are not worth fixing in 2.0 proper
> and plan to do a 2.0.1 in a few weeks with the above plus
> any other breakage that people find.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> thanks
> -- PMM