From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6924371667242188800 X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b0d6:: with SMTP id g22mr15375782ljl.245.1613563007947; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 03:56:47 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: isar-users@googlegroups.com Received: by 2002:a2e:a58c:: with SMTP id m12ls301038ljp.2.gmail; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 03:56:46 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzIAToT+OV166f55MW0NX1/y4i2nS8cwvsDHNt6SdWYSvxjurapj5GgcdymyO+gtbyQhtGZ X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8e76:: with SMTP id t22mr14920324ljk.102.1613563006904; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 03:56:46 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1613563006; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=DgX75k1+QtIr+4WWqLlkE6kf0slLws43C2FE7cteRDkRpEr7MY0/VqyKzq8vFdlmIA uHu003uFLELsPNuqZBNsNHseB+077/neigFUmgEcFcujLh651nxEvL6lebBINtvMVvMK J8ICYeGaxYzpl/rsDC5s5CAVfHph6ye1k0V0PKKnAH+da/M8tFWwGNEmkrbdpNc34tRX efIk3IDRKe1rhJmpvI3zuIq4+cF4yxnBEtzmTQfVtpkGCIg0D16HGrrl1pfFHCbosdN2 MEKadDovRCYGmI6NFQYeevm5jC7YE3e/pZeXgF29iChyju1U5NL6OC7FIpip/ZIBFZyu 2bNw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:to:from:date; bh=J+Tum2hDAVbIgbq+AhAAbEiMdSn5bch8p8TF6ASxRpQ=; b=uZ80h5snkY4FztlcpFweHpQINivnTOyi8UxksiR7s0oJ9ZGK4x/U8e4IklF8+o0hDY AMbrq7CpB2JgaSrnQBS6KKpwj5EafJGZmhMSmWTB3pbZQS3zV7Lm1hjgQeAHaSjnPXhq yqwolrqIkq+9lSJ2fA+Y1OZQbBxnA+OtEfwOTYmjbmK4D3VrTEBuUOETEd7JOtRUjqwt mznEBmz5/6tSRAurnUuwD+6tRzohPKnuPLW6jbLqoH6Md52Mq/FJEOrNMc3crdZg6azB Wqaq3cCShVEbBSlDqzuhpM+lFllosTkRUkOWRMV5BpbttExJXhcsmgHz64IpPSEZgeOm D3PA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Return-Path: Received: from shymkent.ilbers.de (shymkent.ilbers.de. [85.214.156.166]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s5si85030ljg.7.2021.02.17.03.56.46 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 17 Feb 2021 03:56:46 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) client-ip=85.214.156.166; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Received: from yssyq.m.ilbers.de (host-80-81-17-52.static.customer.m-online.net [80.81.17.52]) (authenticated bits=0) by shymkent.ilbers.de (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-8) with ESMTPSA id 11HBuhjs012752 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 12:56:45 +0100 Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 12:56:43 +0100 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov To: "isar-users@googlegroups.com" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] wic: warn on usage of Y2038 affected file systems Message-ID: <20210217115643.GD20742@yssyq.m.ilbers.de> Mail-Followup-To: "isar-users@googlegroups.com" References: <491c833c-c35c-d130-e8e6-f31aee4204aa@ilbers.de> <20210211092338.293c5306@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net> <9b7b9865-2381-d2df-8495-4a208b82304f@siemens.com> <8f7c5554a0e8f4ef52526f84a90c418fd8d9c1d3.camel@siemens.com> <20210211112147.7d683a25@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net> <20210211151318.2eb38893@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net> <5f187abe-0b77-5ba9-e5a5-3da5ce072b7e@siemens.com> <20210211190150.3674b416@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210211190150.3674b416@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on shymkent.ilbers.de X-TUID: lqogF51H2e0N On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 07:01:50PM +0100, Henning Schild wrote: > Florian, maybe you send a revert series. Not your fault but maybe your > call. For that matter, we can discuss reverting. That said, I'd like to understand the situation first. I know that you invested much effort for integrating wic without changes and keeping it unmodified; this prevents maintenance effort. Upstreaming the changes is also good for the same reason; Florian is doing that. If the changes are accepted, we update wic -- everything fine. If not, we still can decide what to do with that -- no doors are closed. Currently, Isar warns users about the problem -- added value. I personally fail to see what value should reverting have in this situation. On the maintainer side, I think we could test the following additions: * Even if the maintainer thinks an RFC patch is good enough as is, it's advised to sync with the list. * If a patch changes upstream copies (bitbake, wic; anything else?), double checking is advised. With kind regards, Baurzhan.