On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 04:43:00PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 09:41:01PM -0700, Noah Misch wrote:
> > I think attached v41nm is ready for commit. Would anyone like to vote against
> > back-patching this? It's hard to justify lack of back-patch for a data-loss
> > bug, but this is atypically invasive. (I'm repeating the question, since some
> > folks missed my 2020-02-18 question.) Otherwise, I'll push this on Saturday.
>
> The invasiveness of the patch is a concern. Have you considered a
> different strategy? For example, we are soon going to be in beta for
> 13, so you could consider committing the patch only on HEAD first.
> If there are issues to take care of, you can then leverage the beta
> testing to address any issues found. Finally, once some dust has
> settled on the concept and we have gained enough confidence, we could
> consider a back-patch.
No. Does anyone favor this proposal more than back-patching normally?
