From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14911CA0EF1 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:24:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qg5Er-00037g-Qj; Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:23:41 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qg5Ep-000376-PT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:23:39 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qg5En-0003a2-HN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:23:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1694532217; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=3DYKot7IbxVJ0Dcq4QL8pPuRl2vIoYE/oC6OC1PxY5M=; b=EmfT1oWV6Geob5zpSHHwe+Xo48nhb3eiOnggqbwaHXOvsvCEKAAE0E+tdC+VPiRExAGog4 r3uFXB+OfVmcHd7YDRoEViRgpvnEh+/MJkXx1YjvbDEn21rpcWt0BpmHhrwA3Y0UEvMwcj vPghgOKeqN9umlPnBg4WgbwLCoIIujw= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-638-sRFqp8fqN7ebpETq_p1kZA-1; Tue, 12 Sep 2023 11:23:33 -0400 X-MC-Unique: sRFqp8fqN7ebpETq_p1kZA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A24E38143A5; Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:23:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from redhat.com (unknown [10.42.28.38]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A6F640C2064; Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:23:30 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 16:23:28 +0100 From: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: Michael Tokarev , QEMU Developers , qemu-stable , Thomas Huth , Bin Meng , Paul Menzel , Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini , Richard Henderson Subject: Re: cherry-picking something to -stable which might require other changes Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.9 (2022-11-12) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.1 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=berrange@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Daniel =?utf-8?B?UC4gQmVycmFuZ8Op?= Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 10:00:46AM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > When I backport patches into RHEL, the general process I follow is: > 1. For context conflicts, just adjust the patch to resolve them. > 2. For real dependencies, backport the dependencies, if possible. > 3. If backporting the dependencies is not possible, think of a > downstream-only solution. This should be rare. > > People make different backporting decisions (just like structuring > patch series). It can be a matter of taste. I tend to try to cherry-pick the dependancies in case (1) too unless they are functionally invasive. Any time you manually adjust a patch, you increase the likelihood that later cherry picks will also require manual work. So I always favour a clean cherry-pick until the point the functional risk becomes unacceptable in the context of testing the change I'm pulling back. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|