Joe, To the best of my knowledge, we have not placed a size restriction on bug fixed for a minor release. As I understand our versioning policy, minor releases are scoped to non-interface breaking bug fixes. Time drift is a non-interface breaking bug, and it is a significant operational issue that should be fixed as soon as feasible. Admittedly, the test effort will be significant, but based on the previous conversation, the test plan is well understood. As such, fixing this defect appears to be within the scope of our versioning policy, and that it can be integrated and tested with an acceptable level of risk.
Seeing as user may be experiencing other system VM problems, it seems might be wise to take a step back for 4.1.1 and completely re-test images anyway. Would it be acceptable to test the 4.2 system VMs against 4.1 and based on the results, determine if/when they could be included in a 4.1 minor release? Thanks, -John On Jun 5, 2013, at 10:42 AM, Joe Brockmeier <j...@zonker.net> wrote: > Hi John, > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013, at 09:42 PM, John Burwell wrote: >> I would like to get clock drift fixed for 4.1.1 as well. What needs >> to be done to test the 4.2 system VMs? How can folks assist with the >> testing process? > > I'd like to get it fixed as well. However, I think that updating system > VMs is a pretty big leap for a point release. We might have an issue > with the fix that has gone in so far for KVM: > > http://markmail.org/message/xoy2wn4ypxpdek4r > > (Note, I am not saying I'm happy about letting the issue sit until 4.2 - > but I'm not sure that a fix that potentially disruptive should go into a > point release.) > > Best, > > jzb > -- > Joe Brockmeier > j...@zonker.net > Twitter: @jzb > http://www.dissociatedpress.net/
