From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58675) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFl7b-0004MN-J5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:54:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFl7T-0002bz-5r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:54:03 -0500 Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <530365DD.908@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:53:33 +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> <530355AB.5020002@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <530355AB.5020002@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= , Peter Maydell Cc: Patch Tracking , qemu-stable , QEMU Developers Il 18/02/2014 13:44, Andreas Färber 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. > The criteria is pretty simple: Was the breakage in the last release > already or was it introduced only intermittently. You haven't defined breakage; what breakage deserves a change in a stable release. Some interpret it as regression, some as "any bug", some as "any crash bug", and so on. Paolo