On 08/29/2013 10:33 AM, Luiz Capitulino wrote:

>>>
>>> Strange, it appears on your pull request... But anyway, your series
>>> made it into 1.6.0, so I think we'll need the missing patch in 1.6.1 too?
>>
>> There's no user in 1.6 (or would we have a build failure) because I
>> didn't merge blockdev-add, so I guess it doesn't matter.
> 
> I won't say it's a huge deal, but any downstreamers basing on 1.6 will
> have a hard time if they backport blockdev-add or any future command
> that my depend on this.

Any downstreamers that plans to backport blockdev-add would also
backport this as part of their efforts.  I don't see that as any
different from any other backport effort that includes requiring
multiple non-contiguous pre-req patches.  We don't need it on the 1.6
stable tree, and downstream is no worse for the wear.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to