From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C1C193E for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 02:28:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vena.lwn.net (tex.lwn.net [70.33.254.29]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EBAAF4 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 02:28:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 20:28:18 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Steven Rostedt Message-ID: <20150713202818.23310729@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <20150713210226.519dedfd@gandalf.local.home> References: <55A1407E.5080800@oracle.com> <55A26C5B.8060007@oracle.com> <20150713105210.6e367f4b@noble> <55A33E48.2040202@oracle.com> <20150713142132.08fead4d@gandalf.local.home> <55A45AD8.5010400@oracle.com> <20150713210226.519dedfd@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Sasha Levin , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Issues with stable process List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:26 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > Yes, it's great if we can catch things in -next. But I don't believe > that patches that fix bugs found in Linus's tree should sit in next > before going into Linus's tree, because those patches are basically > fixing stuff that was already in next and wasn't discovered until it > hit Linus's tree. Which is why I say it's a waste of time to put it in > next before sending straight to Linus. That, of course, assumes that these fixes don't introduce *other* bugs that might just be caught in -next... In general, though, I think a lot of people see -next as -rc1 without the quality control; it's volatile and scary. So it's not surprising that it doesn't get a lot of real-world testing. And, as long as that's the case, there's going to be a lot of bugs that are never caught in -next. jon