[Starlingx-discuss] Questions about patch ab1baac upstreaming
Jones, Bruce E
bruce.e.jones at intel.com
Tue Nov 20 17:49:54 UTC 2018
Cool. One more resolved.
There has been some confusion on what happens next once we get to this state.
1) Mark this patch as abandoned in the spreadsheet and wait to remove it until we rebase?
2) Mark the patch as abandoned and remove it from the code base?
3) Mark the patch as deleted and remove it from the code base now?
4) Something else?
From: Peters, Matt [mailto:Matt.Peters at windriver.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 9:42 AM
To: Le, Huifeng <huifeng.le at intel.com>
Cc: starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io
Subject: Re: [Starlingx-discuss] Questions about patch ab1baac upstreaming
You are correct. This commit should not be upstreamed since the underlying features are being upstreamed, refactored or abandoned.
From: "Le, Huifeng" <huifeng.le at intel.com<mailto:huifeng.le at intel.com>>
Date: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 3:54 AM
To: "Peters, Matt" <Matt.Peters at windriver.com<mailto:Matt.Peters at windriver.com>>
Cc: "starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>" <starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io<mailto:starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>>
Subject: Questions about patch ab1baac upstreaming
I am looking at patch#ab1baac (US106501: Change to Titanium’s handling Neutron Extensions) which targets to remove wrs-fields from the response to non-wrs client (e.g. no ‘wrs-header’ in the client request), suppose this is STX special feature and not need for upstream, could you please help to confirm?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Starlingx-discuss