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

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

 * 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.

Thanks,
Ian.

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