Agreed. This is an enhancement. We should backport only patches which fix things which were broken.
Salvatore On 12 February 2013 18:40, Dan Wendlandt <[email protected]> wrote: > My personal feeling is that while it may not break things if we backport to > folsom, at this point, we should be focusing our resources on making grizzly > solid and thus should only backport things that are truly broken in Folsom. > Under that criteria, I don't think this would be something we backport, but > I'll leave it to garyk and the masters of stable/folsom to decide if that's > the right criteria. > > Dan > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Salvatore Orlando <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Is this change bw compatible? >> I think it's ok to backport to folsom only if users will not have to >> change their configuration files once they update their packages. >> >> Salvatore >> >> On 12 February 2013 18:27, Gary Kotton <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > Is this something that we want to backport: >> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/21648/ >> > Thanks >> > Gary >> > >> > -- >> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core >> > Post to : [email protected] >> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core >> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> -- >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > > -- > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Dan Wendlandt > Nicira, Inc: www.nicira.com > twitter: danwendlandt > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~quantum-core More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
