On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Yann Ylavic <[email protected]> wrote: > A bit orthogonal, I'd also like to sync 2.4.x "event" with trunk's > w.r.t. cosmetic changes before (and to help) further backport > proposals. > > That's possibly something that'll help *us* for later backports, but > not necessarily distros with (security-)fixes only policy. > Is that something we should more care about? I suppose distro > maintainers do care... > > For instance, the three attached patches are how I would stage latest > "event" changes in 2.4.x: > - patch 1: align with trunk what can/needs to be (cosmetics); > - patch 2: optimizations and correctness which don't seem to have > bitten us so far (not a proven fix someow); > - patch 3: a wakeup fix (corner case) that applies almost cleanly > thanks to 1/ and 2/. > > Would this work or should I go with 3/ directly and resolve backport > conflicts there? > Or maybe go with 3/ then 2/ then 1/, for the same result but at least > distros would care of the first step only (for this time...)?
Looks reasonable to me, better to rip the band-aid off then pay the price/risk every time something needs to be backported.
