>>> Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> 04/14/16 8:12 PM >>>
>Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:
>> And btw., considering that Konrad has already posted a revert patch,
>> and I have ack-ed that one, this could now go in right away (and the
>> discussion could either be settled or start over).
>
>I don't see that patch you describe in my inbox, but maybe I have
>missed it.Patches 1 and 2 of the most recent v8.1 series. >If that reversion is proposed, following a request for a 2nd/3rd >opinion from me and George, and given the discussion so far, I think >that patch ought to have been CC'd to me and George. > >I don't think it would be appropriate to commit a revert except as >part of a series which introduces an replacement way of providing the >needed functionality - at least, enough functionality that in practice >a plausibly long build-id can be retrieved. For one, the revert wouldn't revert that functionality, as that didn't even go in yet. >If you want the original reverted, I think it is up to you, Jan, to >provide (or procure) such a replacement. And with that (albeit not just because of it not being in yet at all), I don't see why this would be the case. I think there's some general disagreement here, which with the hackathon around the corner we probably should just get sorted out in person there. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
