[Starlingx-discuss] Questions about patch ab1baac upstreaming

Peters, Matt Matt.Peters at windriver.com
Tue Nov 20 17:55:43 UTC 2018

Hi Bruce,
This particular one is tricky since it covers several other underlying patches/features.  I would say that it falls within the category of #1.  We need the other work to complete so this would need to be held until the underlying patches are either upstreamed or refactored.

Regards, Matt

From: "Jones, Bruce E" <bruce.e.jones at intel.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 at 12:50 PM
To: "Peters, Matt" <Matt.Peters at windriver.com>, "Le, Huifeng" <huifeng.le at intel.com>, "Chilcote Bacco, Derek A" <derek.a.chilcote.bacco at intel.com>
Cc: "starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io" <starlingx-discuss at lists.starlingx.io>
Subject: RE: Questions about patch ab1baac upstreaming

Cool.  One more resolved.

There has been some confusion on what happens next once we get to this state.

Do we:

  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

Hello Huifeng,
You are correct.  This commit should not be upstreamed since the underlying features are being upstreamed, refactored or abandoned.

Regards, Matt

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?

Thanks much!

Best Regards,
Le, Huifeng

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.starlingx.io/pipermail/starlingx-discuss/attachments/20181120/ab0f6000/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Starlingx-discuss mailing list