[08:08] <genkgo> jsalisbury: I just read the remark of Joshua that we should not take that hyperv test kernel into production. What was the base of your build? To which kernel did you apply the commits/patches?
[08:24] <genkgo> jsalisbury: btw, our machine is still doing very well. we are creating backups every half an hour and there were no problems so far.
[19:28] <genkgo> jsalisbury: thank you for providing the kernels so quickly!
[19:29] <jsalisbury> genkgo, np.  I'm glad to hear testing is going well
[19:29] <genkgo> jsalisbury: could you also tell me what kernel you used as base (before applying the patches)?
[19:30] <genkgo> jsalisbury: because joshua advices not to use the kernels in production. well, i feel there should be no problem because only patches to fix a problem were applied.
[19:35] <jsalisbury> genkgo, I used the master-next branch for the Trusty, Utopic and Vivid repos, so the -proposed kernels
[19:36] <genkgo> jsalisbury: ok, that means there were more patches applied then just the hyperv ones
[19:37] <genkgo> jsalisbury: what is the next release of a kernel that might contain the hyperv patches? i am in a doubt if i should take the kernels in production. what would you say?
[19:38] <genkgo> jsalisbury: my situation now is far from perfect either, creating backups is quite important to us
[19:39] <jsalisbury> genkgo, You could start with one machine and test for a while.  There is always a risk of putting a kernel in production that has not been thoroughly tested
[19:39] <genkgo> jsalisbury: ok, i am doing that already, i will convert other machines slowly then, thanks again!
[19:40] <jsalisbury> apw, fyi, testing is going well for bug 1445195
[19:41] <apw> jsalisbury, nice .. good work on that