2018-01-12 13:34 GMT+01:00 Ruediger Pluem <rpl...@apache.org>:

>
>
> On 01/12/2018 01:32 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 6:51 AM, Yann Ylavic <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
>
>
+1!

Reply via email to