From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=32775 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PAKfp-0006AK-Vs for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 06:53:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PAKfo-0002kS-Ow for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 06:53:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39318) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PAKfo-0002kJ-I9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 Oct 2010 06:53:04 -0400 Message-ID: <4CC56188.1090702@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:52:56 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20101020093441.GP10207@redhat.com> <20101021020020.GA21095@morn.localdomain> <4CC010D5.7070103@redhat.com> <20101023141207.GA2165@morn.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20101023141207.GA2165@morn.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [SeaBIOS] [PATCH] mark irq9 active high in DSDT List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin O'Connor Cc: KVM list , seabios@seabios.org, qemu-devel , Gleb Natapov , "Justin M. Forbes" On 10/23/2010 04:12 PM, Kevin O'Connor wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:07:17PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > How do we manage the stable series wrt this issue? > > > > qemu-kvm-0.12.5 has a regression within the stable series that this > > patch fixes. qemu 0.12.5 does not, but only because it does not > > emulate polarity in the I/O APIC correctly. > > > > There are several paths we could take: > > > > - do nothing, bug is fixed in mainline > > - release a seabios 0.x.1 for qemu 0.13.1 with this patch > > - same, plus seabios 0.y.1 for qemu 0.12.6 with this patch > > - skip qemu (which is not truly affected), patch qemu-kvm's copy of > > seabios for both 0.12.z and 0.13.z > > > > The third option is the most "correct" from a release engineering > > point of view, but involves more work for everyone. > > I'm okay with making tags and branches of seabios for bug fixes. So > far qemu/kvm has just grabbed various builds of seabios - is it > worthwhile to branch off of the seabios-0.6.1 version - which would > mean qemu/kvm would pull in additional changes beyond the bug fix > above? qemu 0.12 is based on 0.5.1-stable, appears to be an untagged commit qemu 0.13 is based on 17d3e46511, doesn't appear to be a part of a branch or a tag? git-wise, tags are more important than branches. You can always retrofit a branch to a tag (and you can always retrofit a tag to a commit hash). For the qemu git repositories, neither matter so much since the commit is recorded in git; but the distro people really like nice stable tags with lots of digits and dots in them. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function