Dear Xen developers with commit access to the main Xen tree, Months ago, I reported a bug in xendomains with rather big annoyances for users of domain names with more than 17 characters(xendomains just doesn''t work for these, and the reason is hard to find out), and a very simple fix. I posted it as well to this list, as to the bugzilla. It''s here: http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=859 Nothing happened with this bug, and Xen is still shipping with this error. I now would like to ask, what I could do to get this fix incorporated in Xen, so I don''t have to add this patch on my own after each install of any Xen package on my machines. Thanks in advance, Henning _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Changeset 15384 in xen-unstable (committed on June 19th) should fix this issue. -- Keir On 9/7/07 08:58, "Henning Sprang" <henning_sprang@gmx.de> wrote:> Dear Xen developers with commit access to the main Xen tree, > > Months ago, I reported a bug in xendomains with rather big annoyances > for users of domain names with more than 17 characters(xendomains just > doesn''t work for these, and the reason is hard to find out), and a very > simple fix. > > I posted it as well to this list, as to the bugzilla. It''s here: > > http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=859 > > Nothing happened with this bug, and Xen is still shipping with this error. > > I now would like to ask, what I could do to get this fix incorporated in > Xen, so I don''t have to add this patch on my own after each install of > any Xen package on my machines. > > Thanks in advance, > > Henning > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser wrote:> Changeset 15384 in xen-unstable (committed on June 19th) should fix this > issue.Thanks for the reply, and sorry for not looking extensively into unstable before complaining. I''ve resolved the bug in bugzilla now. Henning _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Henning Sprang wrote:> Keir Fraser wrote: >> Changeset 15384 in xen-unstable (committed on June 19th) should fix this >> issue.Hmm, there is still one question left: The fix I proposed is a patch of about two lines - as can be seen here: http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=859 The fix you took in was much larger instead - in fact 2 lines vs. 20. see: http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg?rev/865c4ae59be3 Is there something totally wrong with the small patch that I oversaw? Not that I have the urgent need to get my own patches in, but I usually tend to think smaller patches should be better, and having less code to maintain is better - and if I propose bad things, I want to know about it :) Henning _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 22/7/07 12:33, "Henning Sprang" <henning_sprang@gmx.de> wrote:> Hmm, there is still one question left: > > The fix I proposed is a patch of about two lines - as can be seen here: > http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=859 > > The fix you took in was much larger instead - in fact 2 lines vs. 20. > > see: http://xenbits.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg?rev/865c4ae59be3 > > Is there something totally wrong with the small patch that I oversaw? > > Not that I have the urgent need to get my own patches in, but I usually > tend to think smaller patches should be better, and having less code to > maintain is better - and if I propose bad things, I want to know about it :)The only flaw with yours is that it went to bugzilla only, and was not sent to xen-devel. If you''d sent it to xen-devel it would have gone in. Now, not only has the larger fix gone in, but other patches also have piled on top. So, in future, send patches to xen-devel *as well as* attaching to bugzilla tickets! -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Keir Fraser wrote:> [...] > The only flaw with yours is that it went to bugzilla only, and was not sent > to xen-devel. If you''d sent it to xen-devel it would have gone in. Now, not > only has the larger fix gone in, but other patches also have piled on top. > So, in future, send patches to xen-devel *as well as* attaching to bugzilla > tickets! >Hmm, I wonder what this might be: http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2007-01/msg00058.html :) Henning _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 23/7/07 20:09, "Henning Sprang" <henning_sprang@gmx.de> wrote:>> [...] >> The only flaw with yours is that it went to bugzilla only, and was not sent >> to xen-devel. If you''d sent it to xen-devel it would have gone in. Now, not >> only has the larger fix gone in, but other patches also have piled on top. >> So, in future, send patches to xen-devel *as well as* attaching to bugzilla >> tickets! >> > > Hmm, I wonder what this might be: > http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2007-01/msg00058.htmlIt''s not actually a patch (i.e., in diff format), it didn''t have [PATCH] in the subject (not required, but handy), and it was a cross-list reply in a mail thread I wasn''t reading. As well as sending that mail, sending a separate one in a new mail thread with [PATCH] in the subject line, a unified diff format patch attached, and a signed-off-by line, would definitely get your patch picked up. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel