From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42176)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1V3vQu-0004Pe-Lp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:56:53 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1V3vQp-00032O-Tj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:56:48 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:26526)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1V3vQp-00032K-Ld
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 17:56:43 -0400
Message-ID: <51F6E5AB.2070404@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 23:59:07 +0200
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1375108636-17014-1-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com>
	<20130729170841.3d746e35@redhat.com> <51F6E473.4040703@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <51F6E473.4040703@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/4] dump-guest-memory: correct the vmcores
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: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Cc: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 07/29/13 23:53, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> On 07/29/13 23:08, Luiz Capitulino wrote:

>> Is this for 1.6?
> 
> It's for whichever release reviewers and maintainers accept it! :)
> 
> On a more serious note, if someone makes an exception out of this, I
> won't object, but I'm not pushing for it. My posting close to the hard
> freeze was a coincidence.

Hmm. I've just caught up on <http://wiki.qemu.org/Planning/1.6>.
Apparently the hard freeze blocks features only, and this is a bugfix.
So yeah, why not.

Thanks,
Laszlo