From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54457) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SUOEp-0007ap-BA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 May 2012 16:21:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SUOEj-0000OD-Ad for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 May 2012 16:20:54 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com ([209.85.210.45]:39366) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SUOEj-0000LI-2b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 15 May 2012 16:20:49 -0400 Received: by dadv2 with SMTP id v2so10787226dad.4 for ; Tue, 15 May 2012 13:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FB2BA9A.9040101@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:20:42 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4FB27EA1.4080800@us.ibm.com> <4FB28574.1080900@weilnetz.de> <4FB28693.30205@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [ANNOUNCE] QEMU 1.1-rc2 release List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Stefan Weil , Anthony Liguori , qemu-devel On 05/15/2012 11:42 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 15 May 2012 17:38, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Known issues == release blockers. I'm not willing to block a release for >> uninitialized memory access unless it's be validated by a human (and if it >> has, there probably will be a patch already). >> >> Likewise, memory leaks are not going to block the release unless they are >> significant. >> >> An TCG deficiencies don't count as a release blocker unless it's a >> regression. > > In this case it is a regression... At what point did it regress? I don't recall win64 ever working uner TCG... > Anyway, my point is not "these things must go in" but that it's very > hard to tell from this side whether a patch is in the state: > (a) in your queue and will go into this rc > (b) missed the boat for this rc but will be in the next > (c) completely overlooked and needs pinging/yelling about > (d) judged not important enough to justify fixing in this release It's it not tagged '1.1' than I am not considering it for 1.1. If it's tagged with 1.1 *and* in a subsystem with an active submaintainer, I would expect the submaintainer to handle it. I do keep track of it though until someone responds with "Thanks, Applied." and will follow up with patches that fall into this category. > The usual "assume it's gone into somebody's tree and ping again > in a week or two" doesn't work when release candidates are done > on a schedule of every week or so, you need a more positive ack > and tracking IMHO. If you've posted a patch for 1.1 and it's a couple days old without feedback, then you probably should ping the appropriate maintainer about it. FWIW, I don't see any pending 1.1 patches from you so I don't know if this is a theoretical concern or a practical one. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > -- PMM