On 02/18/2014 12:22 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 18 February 2014 11:16, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> 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
