From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B026C94 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2016 09:51:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2016 00:51:37 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,471,1473145200"; d="scan'208";a="1042585091" Received: from yliu-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yliu-dev) ([10.239.67.162]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Oct 2016 00:51:37 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 15:52:29 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Christian Ehrhardt Cc: "Mcnamara, John" , "stable@dpdk.org" , Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20161010075229.GJ10323@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Subject: Re: [dpdk-stable] Release note for the stable/lts releases X-BeenThere: stable@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches for stable branches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 07:51:38 -0000 On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 07:29:58PM +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Mcnamara, John > wrote: > > Does that seem okay to everyone? > > > Seems ok to me at least :-) +1 > Out of backport experience sometimes it is almost more interesting to cover > which ones where not applied and a one liner why. > So if some patch made it to qualify to be looked at, but then be rejected it > would be great to show up in a list: > > The following fixes were NOT applied in DPDK 16.07.01 Stable Release: > > * examples: fix very-very-unusual-interpreter; Reason: too unusual to > happen Hmm, is it an example to show rejected patches only? Or, do you actually mean we should not apply it to stable branch? If so, I'm just wondering why haven't you stated that while I sent out for comments before. > > Also I'd pretty much like to get a commit id of the original patch in that > list, so > * kni: fix crash when removing interface > would be > * [5544a453] kni: fix crash when removing interface > > What about these suggestions? Does that matter? I mean, why we should put it in the release note? OTOH, I have included the original commit info while cherry-pick it from upstream. For example, --- commit 6f55e57db50b1729c33a011eafc7704753cb8860 Author: Ferruh Yigit Date: Wed Aug 31 17:48:48 2016 +0100 app/testpmd: fix help of MTU set commmand [ upstream commit b2fbb98789d4e7311a415052897d98b6850861de ] Fixes: ae03d0d18adf ("app/testpmd: command to configure MTU") Signed-off-by: Ferruh Yigit Acked-by: Pablo de Lara diff --git a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c index f90befc..17d238f 100644 --- a/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c +++ b/app/test-pmd/cmdline.c @@ -1367,7 +1367,7 @@ cmdline_parse_token_num_t cmd_config_mtu_value = cmdline_parse_inst_t cmd_config_mtu = { .f = cmd_config_mtu_parsed, .data = NULL, - .help_str = "port config mtu value", + .help_str = "port config mtu port_id value", .tokens = { (void *)&cmd_config_mtu_port, (void *)&cmd_config_mtu_keyword, --yliu