From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Jackson Subject: Re: Which trees are supported (Was: Re: [qemu-upstream-4.2-testing test] 77180: regressions - FAIL) Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 16:02:01 +0000 Message-ID: <22158.35833.90014.57330@mariner.uk.xensource.com> References: <1452160573.21055.147.camel@citrix.com> <1452165737.21055.197.camel@citrix.com> <568E5DF902000078000C4542@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> <1452168058.21055.203.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1452168058.21055.203.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Wei Liu , Lars Kurth , Jan Beulich , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Which trees are supported (Was: Re: [qemu-upstream-4.2-testing test] 77180: regressions - FAIL)"): > Did we stop adding backports to staging-4.4 in September, i.e. is 4.4.4 > going to be fixes from August-September + security issues until the release > date? My usual approach with backports is to apply them back until either (a) they don't apply or (b) I reach the first tree which is out of security support. In the case (a) I make a personal decision whether to either (i) spend my own effort adapting the backport or (ii) tell someone (the submitter, often) and give them the opportunity to supply a backport. In both cases (a) and (b), the nominal support status of the old tree is a factor, but not determinative. I avoid making /any/ changes to trees which are out of security support, to avoid giving them the appearance of being alive. Ian.