On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 03:37:19PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 15:25, Cleber Rosa <cr...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 03:12:31PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > > > On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 at 15:09, Cleber Rosa <cr...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Fix for m68k/q800 acceptance test (Philippe Mathieu-Daudé) > > > > > > Any pullreq after about rc2 needs to clearly say > > > what it's fixing and why it's justifiable for it to > > > go in rather than waiting for the next release. > > > Otherwise you get the default response: > > > nope, not at this point in the release cycle. > > > This is fixing the URL from which a kernel package is fetched from, > > updating it to an archival (thus stable) location. The current > > location is transient, and Debian removes packages from those > > locations after a given amount of time. Without this patch, the test > > is never going to be executed. The package itself is unchanged, as > > can be seen from the verification hash that was not changed. > > > > While this is far from critical, the main benefit of having this in > > 4.2, as opposed to in the next cycle, is to not "ship" a broken test > > in a release. It would also help downstream packages running such > > tests. > > Thanks for the explanation. If at the moment the test is simply > being skipped (ie it is not actually failing) then I would > prefer to delay this to 5.0. Otherwise we'll start running > the test and may find that it is actually failing in some > of our CI or test environments. That wouldn't be a problem > a bit earlier in the release cycle, but given we've already > had rc4 and rc5 is going to have the minimum number of > absolutely critical fixes in it I think I'd prefer not to > take that risk. > > thanks > -- PMM >
Yes, this is a very fair point. Thanks, - Cleber.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
