On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 09:32:21 +0100 Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:56:21 -0700 > Alex Williamson <alex.william...@redhat.com> 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, > > FWIW, I had planned to send a pull request with what is in my queue > (including the new machine type) first thing after 4.0 opens. > > For the next release: Should we always create a patch like this that > adds the new type for all machines and queue this as the first thing > when the tree opens again? (I'd even be willing to do that...) For this > release, I would prefer to use the already-existing patches instead. Ok, so we'll stick with the original v3 version that didn't include ccw and Marc-André's series and this one can fight it out for the rest of the versioned machines. Please disregard this v3.1 patch including ccw. Thanks, Alex
