From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6309FC43603 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 16:51:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C00124659 for ; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 16:51:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Y8vZ/jcA" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2C00124659 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:41208 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1idGoo-0003Vr-MD for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 11:51:02 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:46358) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1idFo9-0001Dd-Em for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 10:46:18 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1idFo3-0006Mk-AL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 10:46:12 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:43718 helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1idFo2-0006Ji-SX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 10:46:11 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1575647169; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=s+QCmtAoSbsFXhh9jznWklrSekDd1K+v+KfUa846Fs0=; b=Y8vZ/jcA+wyaVFEtcMYwnmWfxrMcndY3Acx1U+yS6Bk+zMBcTZY65TCzuJwl7qNKo1vo2k ovlxR7FhjCDuE1tB7SSARop3VNK/oa6LtJh32g571cDdSnQ6dNcJdZMWs/Lm6HChDDgxym iWgHHy4GvOz/d72GSCyzkTyWIUWVokU= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-426-9LOT38v1NhagqXniTcypxQ-1; Fri, 06 Dec 2019 10:46:06 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 9LOT38v1NhagqXniTcypxQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 964FB800D5B; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:46:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dhcp-17-72.bos.redhat.com (dhcp-17-72.bos.redhat.com [10.18.17.72]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E17A95C1C3; Fri, 6 Dec 2019 15:45:59 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 10:45:58 -0500 From: Cleber Rosa To: Peter Maydell Subject: Re: [PULL 0/1] Fix for m68k/q800 acceptance test for QEMU 4.2-rc Message-ID: <20191206154558.GA23522@dhcp-17-72.bos.redhat.com> References: <20191206150844.20124-1-crosa@redhat.com> <20191206152543.GA20588@dhcp-17-72.bos.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.16 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU" Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 205.139.110.120 X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Beraldo Leal , QEMU Developers , Wainer dos Santos Moschetta , Willian Rampazzo , Philippe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mathieu-Daud=E9?= , Eduardo Habkost Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 03:37:19PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 15:25, Cleber Rosa wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 03:12:31PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 15:09, Cleber Rosa wrote: > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Fix for m68k/q800 acceptance test (Philippe Mathieu-Daud=E9) > > > > > > Any pullreq after about rc2 needs to clearly say > > > what it's fixing and why it's justifiable for it to > > > go in rather than waiting for the next release. > > > Otherwise you get the default response: > > > nope, not at this point in the release cycle. >=20 > > This is fixing the URL from which a kernel package is fetched from, > > updating it to an archival (thus stable) location. The current > > location is transient, and Debian removes packages from those > > locations after a given amount of time. Without this patch, the test > > is never going to be executed. The package itself is unchanged, as > > can be seen from the verification hash that was not changed. > > > > While this is far from critical, the main benefit of having this in > > 4.2, as opposed to in the next cycle, is to not "ship" a broken test > > in a release. It would also help downstream packages running such > > tests. >=20 > Thanks for the explanation. If at the moment the test is simply > being skipped (ie it is not actually failing) then I would > prefer to delay this to 5.0. Otherwise we'll start running > the test and may find that it is actually failing in some > of our CI or test environments. That wouldn't be a problem > a bit earlier in the release cycle, but given we've already > had rc4 and rc5 is going to have the minimum number of > absolutely critical fixes in it I think I'd prefer not to > take that risk. >=20 > thanks > -- PMM >=20 Yes, this is a very fair point. Thanks, - Cleber. --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEeruW64tGuU1eD+m7ZX6NM6XyCfMFAl3qd7MACgkQZX6NM6Xy CfNOrg/+PewR8O3yK3f4aMS1KPPJwRKY0jTPgrWY7LamNKndZj2Dvxjwqa023/bH n2HCk8S0yGoBnAJZP2sHuqtGwdkhikUr/UHBj5GgJ5Aq1Larz52kEV+RALTogzeY PrX7+nSyahNMkf+xbs9gVblUMirxhRwsBVXyUeCR0gJhSu1g+wQEWy0Uba3752ho b7V42h2f+QPCINpds74bNidBDOdXk7+UZ/3TJojPbGbWo7XlYRAoYHhX2S8re1C5 AJknah8MpYfync8QCQ5hXlxQItvJC8B9y3gHyepAIgsG/3TIW0PMQ7EK6vMKBn67 uYB4V7dFz1hDedIzylgaIWp+/MRJ/CztumviPv2BKbWUX1TsPZ+PXLXM61qMU0SA CgzXoDmKZbZDiHOAMGLj9G+qlbm2w1G7shrU9sTawymb/cZ5aRFLpt0YhGaNcEyB za1HyEUhicJGmX8yQ4VsAQ01IA4cQxfercNk8Hqa97fY++sSPgZKBhDyXwHtM91q ZM7rePR1v9Xcok+9zkFPZ5xgY3GPVjfPJLu38oJ4ZaBC/Wfkp/yhHYamOb3CnsL1 Z972RiQZZ9A+dtvVeUF8TZ4b56iYpBd4A4c56fg9vryldkHFpbTVkbLfxRsEsrOM FRVCztMwH+7S2y0kYdih/HO3I9NNHslu2vL1dSzIpkyJPkMX8kw= =jmGr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU--