On 01/12/2018 01:32 PM, Eric Covener wrote: > 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. >
+1 Regards Rüdiger
