On 17 August 2017 at 17:31, Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote: > On 17/08/2017 18:17, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 17 August 2017 at 17:16, Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 17/08/2017 18:14, Igor Mammedov wrote: >>>> travis builds fail at HEAD at rc3 master with >>>> >>>> block/nbd-client.c: In function ‘nbd_read_reply_entry’: >>>> block/nbd-client.c:110:8: error: ‘ret’ may be used uninitialized in this >>>> function [-Werror=uninitialized] >>>> >>>> fix it by initializing 'ret' to 0 >>> >>> This is a false positive, but it's understandably impossible for the >>> compiler to figure it out. >>> >>> Even though we disable -Werror on release builds, it may be worth fixing >>> this in 2.10 if it doesn't delay the release. Peter, what do you think >>> about applying this on top of -rc3 without doing a fourth candidate? >> >> I don't like doing releases which haven't had an rc, >> but we've had abbreviated "just a couple of days" rc-to-final >> cycles before. > > It's just a matter of "looking unpolished". It doesn't deserve -rc4, > not even for just a couple of days.
The purpose of having an rc4 is to avoid the chance of messing up the change (which is possible, even if it's a pretty remote chance). Having an rc4 gives us a window to catch and fix that kind of error -- once we've tagged something as the final release we don't get to do it over. thanks -- PMM
