> On Jan 12, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Eric Covener <cove...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com 
> <mailto:ylavic....@gmail.com>> 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

BTW, there is no need for some of this stuff to be part of the public
API.

Reply via email to