From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [V3 PATCH 0/9]: PVH dom0.... Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 11:39:27 +0000 Message-ID: <529C716F.6040309@eu.citrix.com> References: <1385519230-21132-1-git-send-email-mukesh.rathor@oracle.com> <529731E6.5050201@eu.citrix.com> <529869BA0200007800108109@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VnRqh-0000es-6q for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 11:39:35 +0000 In-Reply-To: <529869BA0200007800108109@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: xen-devel , keir.xen@gmail.com, tim@xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/29/2013 09:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 28.11.13 at 13:07, George Dunlap wrote: >> So on the whole, there is a benefit (if a bit nebulous) to having it in, >> and a reasonably low risk; and it's not clear that the risk will be >> significantly mitigated by waiting another 6 months. I'm therefore >> inclined to give it a release ack. >> >> Any thoughts? > You worded it quite nicely, and much better than I would ever have > been able to, but in the end it all boils down to the same reasoning > that I have been following when suggesting to take the changes if > they're ready. Sure, and your reasoning was ultimately the basis for my conclusion. But I think it's helpful to go through the exercise anyway just to be sure you've got it right; and it's also helpful I think to have all the information in one place so that it's easier for someone else to follow the reasoning, so they can either learn from it, or argue with it. :-) -George