[libvirt] maint: backport of 736e017e and friends

Eric Blake eblake at redhat.com
Tue Apr 8 15:51:38 UTC 2014


On 04/08/2014 05:28 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> I wanted to back-port 736e017e as requested in Bug 1058149 [1],
> because it fixes a crash.  However, it requires 5b3492fa and e9d09fe1
> to be back-ported as well, so I wanted to confirm it's still OK when
> it's not a simple two-liner or similar (and combined with the low
> probability of the crash to happen).  What's the stand on this?
> 
> Martin
> 
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1058149

Backporting all three as a series makes the most sense for me; if
there's no major conflicts, then go ahead an push it to the maint
branches that are impacted.


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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 604 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20140408/3a72ae1f/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the libvir-list mailing list