On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 12:35:09AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 26.03.2013, at 00:16, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > On 03/25/2013 05:59:39 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> On 25.03.2013, at 23:54, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> > On 03/25/2013 05:32:11 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> >> >> On 25.03.2013, at 23:21, Scott Wood wrote:
> >> >> > -next? These are bugfixes, at least partially for regressions from
> >> >> > 3.8 (that I pointed out before the bugs were merged!), that should go
> >> >> > into master.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Also, what about:
> >> >> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/226227/
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You've got all four patches in kvm-ppc-3.9 as of a few weeks ago --
> >> >> > will you be requesting a pull for that soon?
> >> >> Sigh. I guess I've screwed up the whole "let's make -next an unusable
> >> >> tree and fix regressions in a separate one" workflow again. Sorry for
> >> >> that.
> >> >> Since the patches already trickled into kvm's next branch, all we can
> >> >> do now is to wait for them to come back through stable, right? Marcelo,
> >> >> Gleb?
> >> >
> >> > Well, you can still submit that kvm-ppc-3.9 pull request. :-)
> >> I can, but nobody would pull it, as it'd create ugly merge commits when
> >> 3.10 opens
> >
> > That's a lousy excuse for leaving bugs unfixed.
>
> I agree. So if it doesn't hurt to have the same commits in kvm/next and
> kvm/master, I'd be more than happy to send another pull request with the
> important fixes against kvm/master as well.
>
If it will result in the same commit showing twice in the Linus tree in 3.10 we
cannot do that.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
