From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51755) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c6QXU-0002PM-Ra for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:19:49 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c6QXP-0007wf-UW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:19:48 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58420) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c6QXP-0007wX-Oy for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:19:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 01:19:40 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20161115011418-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1478887767-31980-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20161114155258.GC26664@stefanha-x1.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161114155258.GC26664@stefanha-x1.localdomain> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL v2 00/34] virtio, vhost, pc, pci: tests, documentation, fixes and cleanups List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Hajnoczi Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Peter Maydell On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 03:52:58PM +0000, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 08:09:58PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > libvhost-user is the only thing that might be controvertial here, but it's only > > affecting contrib/ and tests so I think it's still fair game, and several > > people were asking for it. > > I am being firm about the freeze policy. Only fixes are allowed. > Please send a v3 without libvhost-user. What's a fix is at some level in the eye of the beholder. Consider Igor's patch removing an unused fw cfg file, is this a fix? In the past it was maintainer's decision. This one cleans up test code. > I understand that people want libvhost-user. Please merge it in a -next > branch and have them base their work on that. > > Stefan Well I feel bad about it. It was ready in time, I deferred it because there was so much other stuff that I did not want it to interfere with. I was sure it's ok - it's just a test change, I don't really see why we need to enforce policy for tests, they are not used in production. Let's make an exception for once? -- MST