From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38566) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFjcg-00065j-GQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:18:09 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFjcZ-0006i4-6H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 07:18:02 -0500 Message-ID: <53034F6F.1010905@suse.de> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 13:17:51 +0100 From: Alexander Graf 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 Developers , Paolo Bonzini , qemu-stable , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= , Patch Tracking On 02/18/2014 12:22 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 18 February 2014 11:16, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Il 18/02/2014 12:09, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >> >>>> No, we've had that topic before: It's your job as submitter and >>>> maintainer to flag that appropriately in the commit message, as per QEMU >>>> Summit 2012. >>> I don't think this workflow works. I have no idea what >>> stable's criteria are, and if you rely on people >>> adding a cc you're going to miss stuff. >> >> 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". Unfortunately this doesn't work for distributions. Distros need to maintain a stable branch for the lifetime of a release to ensure that we're reasonably regression free. If you indicate that this doesn't apply to ARM it basically means you admit that ARM systems are not yet ready for "stable" use by customers when they want to use KVM. At least at the point when we agree that customers do want to run on a stable base for virtualization on ARM we need a working -stable system for critical fixes. Alex