On 04.12.2018 20:56, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 19:29:25 +0000
> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 19:26, Alex Williamson <alex.william...@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 20:16:44 +0100
>>> Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think Conny has already added the s390/ccw part to her next tree.
>>>> From a quick glimpse both patches look identical.
>>>
>>> If so then we can just use the original v3 version of this patch that
>>> touches all but ccw and let them come together in mainline. My
>>> assumption is that Peter is only trying to make sure all versioned
>>> machines are updated early in this release, not necessarily that
>>> they need to be updated together.
>>
>> Yes, that's the idea. I also think it's a suboptimal idea
>> to include the version-number-bump patch in a series that's
>> adding some feature, because then if the feature itself
>> has to go through several rounds of patch review the
>> version-number-bump patch is stuck unapplied (we saw that
>> at the end of the 3.1 cycle), or it gets bumped by some
>> other unrelated series and then there's a merge conflict.
>> But that's more of a things-for-next time remark, no need
>> to rearrange this now.
>
> If you and the other stakeholders agree, you are more than welcome to
> pluck this patch from the series and apply it as soon as 4.0 opens. It
> might make things a tiny bit easier down the road to avoid the
> conflicts since we seem to have multiple contenders vying for this
> update. Maybe the best practice going forward is to open the merge
> window with such a commit. Thanks,
I agree. Something like this should be the first commit after each release.
