On 17 February 2014 14:37, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Three random easy patches fixing issues reported by Coverity Scan.
>
> Peter Maydell (3):
> hw/misc/arm_sysctl: Fix bad boundary check on mb clock accesses
> hw/net/stellaris_enet: Avoid unintended sign extension
> hw/timer/arm_timer: Avoid a
Il 18/02/2014 13:44, Andreas Färber ha scritto:
> There isn't really a standard criterion. It's up to each maintainer to
> be stricter or looser on what goes to stable.
The criteria is pretty simple: Was the breakage in the last release
already or was it introduced only intermittently.
You ha
On 18 February 2014 12:44, Andreas Färber wrote:
> What especially annoys me here is that Peter wants to play on Anthony's
> level on the project but is openly ignoring both our stable releases as
> a concept (we wouldn't need a release in the first place if we don't
> care about it working!) and
On 02/18/2014 01:53 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 18.02.2014 13:51, schrieb Alexander Graf:
Traditionally what I've done is to reply to patches
that I consider stable material and nag the maintainer about CCing it.
After a while people got so afraid of my emails that they started doing
the CC the
Am 18.02.2014 13:51, schrieb Alexander Graf:
> Traditionally what I've done is to reply to patches
> that I consider stable material and nag the maintainer about CCing it.
> After a while people got so afraid of my emails that they started doing
> the CC themselves :). But in case of the integrator
On 02/18/2014 01:37 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 18 February 2014 12:17, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 02/18/2014 12:22 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
My criteria for ARM in the past has typically been "there's
a new release every three months, anything that got past
the release testing process for releas
Am 18.02.2014 12:16, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 18/02/2014 12:09, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> > No, we've had that topic before: It's your job as submitter and
>> > maintainer to flag that appropriately in the commit message, as per
>> QEMU
>> > Summit 2012.
>>
>> I don't think this workflow work
On 18 February 2014 12:17, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 02/18/2014 12:22 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> My criteria for ARM in the past has typically been "there's
>> a new release every three months, anything that got past
>> the release testing process for release N is sufficiently
>> non-critical it
On 02/18/2014 12:22 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 18 February 2014 11:16, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 18/02/2014 12:09, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
No, we've had that topic before: It's your job as submitter and
maintainer to flag that appropriately in the commit message, as per QEMU
Summit 2012.
I
Il 18/02/2014 12:22, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> There isn't really a standard criterion. It's up to each maintainer to be
> stricter or looser on what goes to stable.
My criteria for ARM in the past has typically been "there's
a new release every three months, anything that got past
the releas
On 18 February 2014 11:16, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 18/02/2014 12:09, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>
>> > No, we've had that topic before: It's your job as submitter and
>> > maintainer to flag that appropriately in the commit message, as per QEMU
>> > Summit 2012.
>>
>> I don't think this workflow
Il 18/02/2014 12:09, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> No, we've had that topic before: It's your job as submitter and
> maintainer to flag that appropriately in the commit message, as per QEMU
> Summit 2012.
I don't think this workflow works. I have no idea what
stable's criteria are, and if you rely
On 18 February 2014 10:13, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 18.02.2014 10:46, schrieb Peter Maydell:
>> On 18 February 2014 01:02, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Shouldn't 1/3 and 3/3 be included in 1.7.1 as guest-triggerable bugs?
>>> There's no qemu-sta...@nongnu.org in the commit message.
>>
>> That's up
Am 18.02.2014 10:46, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 18 February 2014 01:02, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Shouldn't 1/3 and 3/3 be included in 1.7.1 as guest-triggerable bugs?
>> There's no qemu-sta...@nongnu.org in the commit message.
>
> That's up to whoever maintains stable, I guess. I have no objecti
On 18 February 2014 01:02, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Shouldn't 1/3 and 3/3 be included in 1.7.1 as guest-triggerable bugs?
> There's no qemu-sta...@nongnu.org in the commit message.
That's up to whoever maintains stable, I guess. I have no objection.
thanks
-- PMM
Am 17.02.2014 19:59, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 17/02/2014 15:37, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
>> Three random easy patches fixing issues reported by Coverity Scan.
>>
>> Peter Maydell (3):
>> hw/misc/arm_sysctl: Fix bad boundary check on mb clock accesses
>> hw/net/stellaris_enet: Avoid unintend
Il 17/02/2014 15:37, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
Three random easy patches fixing issues reported by Coverity Scan.
Peter Maydell (3):
hw/misc/arm_sysctl: Fix bad boundary check on mb clock accesses
hw/net/stellaris_enet: Avoid unintended sign extension
hw/timer/arm_timer: Avoid array overru
Three random easy patches fixing issues reported by Coverity Scan.
Peter Maydell (3):
hw/misc/arm_sysctl: Fix bad boundary check on mb clock accesses
hw/net/stellaris_enet: Avoid unintended sign extension
hw/timer/arm_timer: Avoid array overrun for bad addresses
hw/misc/arm_sysctl.c| 4
18 matches
Mail list logo
