From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56226) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFimG-0002qd-Om for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:23:58 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFimA-0006jM-0o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:23:52 -0500 Message-ID: <530342BC.9000503@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:23:40 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1392647854-8067-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <53025C08.2030207@redhat.com> <5302B11F.1070400@suse.de> <53033261.7020100@suse.de> <5303411A.5080601@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/3] ARM: three easy patches for coverity-reported issues List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: qemu-stable , Patch Tracking , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= , QEMU Developers Il 18/02/2014 12:22, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >> > There isn't really a standard criterion. It's up to each maintainer to be >> > stricter or looser on what goes to stable. > My criteria for ARM in the past has typically been "there's > a new release every three months, anything that got past > the release testing process for release N is sufficiently > non-critical it can just go into release N+1". Then you can ignore qemu-stable. :) Paolo