Re: [Xen-devel] [PULL] qemu-xen stable update to 1.6.2

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2014, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 14:35 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 09:35:10AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 18:52 +0000, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> > > > > There is an update of QEMU 1.6, I have done a merge and put that in a 
> > > > > tree:
> > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/aperard/qemu-dm.git  merge-1.6.2
> > > > 
> > > > Based on the above I have no idea whether a freeze exception should be
> > > > granted for this, so my default answer is no. I'm not sure what else you
> > > > could have expected.
> > > > 
> > > > If you think there are changes here which should be in 4.4.0 then please
> > > > enumerate all changes included in this merge which have any relation to
> > > > Xen and their potential impact on the release.
> > > 
> > > I have a list the change here that have a potential impact on Xen, with
> > > the ones that I think are quite important at the beginning. Either the
> > > commit title speak for itself or I added a small description on what is
> > > affected.
> > 
> > Thanks but there's not a lot here for me to go on WRT making a decision
> > on a freeze exception. Did you refer to 
> > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Xen_Roadmap/4.4#Exception_guidelines_for_after_the_code_freeze
> > like I said? A freeze exception needs an analysis of benefits and risks,
> > not the very briefest words you can possibly manage.
> > 
> > Anyway it appears this is a grab bag of things we might want and misc
> > fixes which are perhaps nice to have, I'm nowhere near comfortable
> > giving it a blanket exemption based on what you've presented here, or
> > even of cherry picking what might be the important ones. If you think
> > any or all of it is actually important for 4.4 please make a proper case
> > for inclusion, either of the aggregate or of the individual changes.
> 
> Anthony, did you simply update the tree by pulling from the upstream 1.6
> stable tree? I also assume that you tested at the very least the basic
> PV and HVM configurations?
> 
> If so, I think we should take everything they have there. If we don't,
> I'll propose to do the same for 4.4.1.

I realize I have been a bit terse there: the reason is that I think we
should be pulling from QEMU stable trees for the corresponding Xen
stable releases. Their stable backporting policy seems reasonable and
not laxer than ours.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel