[libvirt] maint: backport of 736e017e and friends

[Martin Kletzander]

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:24:45PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:28:35PM +0200, Martin Kletzander wrote:
>> I wanted to back-port 736e017e as requested in Bug 1058149 [1],
>> because it fixes a crash.  However, it requires 5b3492fa and e9d09fe1
>> to be back-ported as well, so I wanted to confirm it's still OK when
>> it's not a simple two-liner or similar (and combined with the low
>> probability of the crash to happen).  What's the stand on this?
>
>If they cherry-pick cleanly, or with trivial resolution then it
>is fine to backport them to -maint branches without re-posting
>for review IMHO.
>
>If they have nasty conflicts to resolve, then post the backport for
>review first in normal way.
>

Conflicts were minimal up to v1.0.3-maint (to few branches I included
one more trivial patch) and I haven't back-ported to older maintenance
branches since nobody hit this issue until now.

Thanks for clearing it up for me.

Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/attachments/20140411/74cee81f/attachment-0001.sig>