On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 09:41:01PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote: > I think attached v41nm is ready for commit. Would anyone like to vote against > back-patching this? It's hard to justify lack of back-patch for a data-loss > bug, but this is atypically invasive. (I'm repeating the question, since some > folks missed my 2020-02-18 question.) Otherwise, I'll push this on Saturday.
The invasiveness of the patch is a concern. Have you considered a different strategy? For example, we are soon going to be in beta for 13, so you could consider committing the patch only on HEAD first. If there are issues to take care of, you can then leverage the beta testing to address any issues found. Finally, once some dust has settled on the concept and we have gained enough confidence, we could consider a back-patch. In short, my point is just that even if this stuff is discussed for years, I see no urgency in back-patching per the lack of complains we have in -bugs or such. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
