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!