On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 12:56:21PM -0700, 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 can queue v3 on machine-next and send a pull request as soon as v3.1.0 is tagged. Any objections? -- Eduardo
