Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] 1.4 release schedule

[Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>]

Am 05.12.2012 20:58, schrieb Blue Swirl:
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> On 12/05/2012 08:28 PM, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 10:00 PM, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4 December 2012 18:38, Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The definition of the hard freeze bothers me. A few patches that went
>>>>>> in after 1.3-rc0 were not bug fixes but just new features, so the
>>>>>> difference between soft and hard freezes was not clear.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My vote for this would be to adhere to our definition
>>>>> and only commit bugfixes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's get specific.  What was committed post hard freeze that's not a
>>>> bug fix?
>>>
>>>
>>> d3067b0 Documentation: Update image format information
>>> a13e5e0 Documentation: Update block cache mode information
>>> 044d003 qemu-tech.texi: update implemented xtensa features list
>>
>>
>> Adding missing / updating docs to be more accurate is a bug fix,
>> and one with a very low chance of causing regressions at that.
> 
> I don't think they are bug fixes but improvements to documentation
> features. But I agree patches only touching documentation, comment and
> string contents could be exempted.

Actually these patches contain changes where the documentation didn't
match the implementation. In other words, the documentation was indeed
buggy.

They also added some missing things, but as you said, improving
documentation during the hard freeze isn't a bad thing anyway.

>>> 74c856e tests: add thread pool unit tests
>>> b2ea25d tests: add AioContext unit tests

And the same is true for tests. They can only improve the release.

> 1bc6b70 block: add bdrv_reopen() support for raw hdev, floppy, and cdrom

Bug fix. Live commit on block devices was broken because the (already
implemented) callbacks accidentally weren't added to all BlockDriver
structs, but only to the 'file' one.

I'll admit that the commit message doesn't make this very clear, but
anyway you should probably trust subsystem maintainers a bit more that
they know what they are doing.

Kevin