[Mesa-stable] [Mesa-dev] [PATCH] radv: Fix driver UUID SHA1 init.

[Emil Velikov]

On 21 September 2018 at 17:07, Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21 September 2018 at 16:55, Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> wrote:
>> Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-09-21 08:47:30)
>>> On 21 September 2018 at 08:19, Juan A. Suarez Romero
>>> <jasuarez at igalia.com> wrote:
>>> > On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 20:16 +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:33 PM Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at intel.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Thursday, 2018-09-20 19:17:57 +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>>> >> > > Was missing the init, found by Emil.
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Fixes: d17443a4593 "radv: Use build ID if available for cache UUID."
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Reviewed-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at intel.com>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > CC: <mesa-stable at lists.freedesktop.org>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Cc'ing mesa-stable has no effect when you're already adding the
>>> >> > proper Fixes: tag :)
>>> >>
>>> >> Last time I asked about the difference between Fixes and CC, the
>>> >> conclusion I got that Fixes is only best effort for the stable
>>> >> branches and that if it does not apply it will be dropped silently,
>>> >> while for the CC ones the release manager will notify you.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > In previous releases that was the way it worked: we always our best effort to
>>> > apply CC and Fixes patches. The difference was that if we couldn't apply the
>>> > patch, then we were only notifying in the pre-announcement "Rejected" section
>>> > about the CC, and silently ignoring the Fixes.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > But nowadays, we notify about all the candidates to stable, which are CC and
>>> > Fixes.
>>> >
>>> Here is an alternative wording, hopefully it will make things clearer:
>>>
>>> Both CC and Fixes work and having both does not hurt.
>>>
>>> Fixes provides clear indication when/where the problem originates.
>>> Cc _explicitly_ requests the patch to be in stable - that's why we
>>> have the list + late nominations.
>>>
>>> It _explicit_ nomination does _not_ apply then the nominator is informed.
>>>
>>> -Emil
>>
>> Yeah, that's not useful. We don't need a "you can put this in if you want but
>> don't tell me if you didn't". Either it's nominated or it's not. If Fixes:
>> doesn't mean "I want this in any stable branch with commit X" then we should
>> stop using the tag.
>>
> Fixes means "I want this _anywhere_ with commit X". No idea how you
> read my comment otherwise ;-)
>
Err that should be "everywhere".

-Emil