Re: [Xen-devel] Request a freeze exception for Libxl Migration v2 in 4.6

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 03:13:36PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Request a freeze exception for Libxl Migration v2 in 
> 4.6"):
> > Andrew Cooper writes ("Request a freeze exception for Libxl Migration v2 in 
> > 4.6"):
> > > I would like to request a freeze exception for libxl migration v2.
> > > 
> > > v3 of the series was posted this morning, and review seems to indicate
> > > that it is mostly on track.  I hope to have v4 ready to post tomorrow,
> > > and hope to have no further adjustments required.
> > 
> > Wei asked me for input and I thought it best to reply by email.
> 
> The series is now fully acked and there are only two things stopping
> it going in right away:
> 
>  * The need for a freeze exception which has not yet been granted.
> 

It has. I replied to your email earlier.

>  * We have a bug report about it breaking Remus.  This is being
>    investigated.  My view as maintainer is that this should not be a
>    blocker to committing this series, because:
> 
>      - This series is itself a prerequisite for Colo work, which
>        is being promoted by many of the same people as Remus.
> 
>      - I have confidence that this bug will be resolved early during
>        the freeze.  In particular I have confidence (based on past
>        performance) that the bug-hunt will be thorough, and that the
>        submitter of this v2 migration series will quickly take
>        responsibility and develop necessary fixes.
> 
>   I would like to get a confirmation from a Remus maintainer that they
>   are happy with this approach: that is, to commit now, and fix later.
> 
>   But after getting that confirmation, if it weren't for the freeze I
>   would now be pushing this series to staging.
> 
> 
> Arguments in favour of the exception:
> 
>  * The series is a prerequisite for other important work (notably
>    Colo), and even if that other work misses 4.6, we want to make as
>    much progress as possible.
> 
>  * This series is cleanup work, rather than new functionality; we hope
>    it will improve the release's long-term maintainability and
>    quality.
> 
>  * The code quality of the initial non-RFC v1 was very high.
> 
>  * Without this series we will, for another release, have an
>    entirely-unexercised set of `v2 migration' code at the libxc layer.
> 
>  * The series is now in good shape and only 3 working days late.
> 
> Arguments against:
> 
>  * We are switching between implementations of a major piece of
>    functionality.
> 
> 
> I would recommend granting an exception, subject to two conditions:
> 
>  * Confirmation from a Remus maintainer that they would prefer this
>    series to go in now, and be fixed later, despite the probable
>    existence of a Remus-related bug.
> 
>  * That the series should be committed today or tomorrow.
> 

I would say as soon as possible. Don't want to rush everything in within
next week.

Wei.

> Thanks,
> Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel