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 714E7AF3 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:28:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from v094114.home.net.pl (v094114.home.net.pl [79.96.170.134]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5BCDD11A for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:28:43 +0000 (UTC) From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, NeilBrown Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:55:18 +0200 Message-ID: <2357837.dgQRuM7BY1@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <20150713151012.6da5f019@noble> References: <55A1407E.5080800@oracle.com> <55A33E48.2040202@oracle.com> <20150713151012.6da5f019@noble> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Cc: Sasha Levin Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Issues with stable process List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Monday, July 13, 2015 03:10:12 PM NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 00:27:52 -0400 Sasha Levin > wrote: > > > On 07/12/2015 08:52 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > > > My proposal would be to change the default timing. > > > Currently patches tagged for 'stable' go into the next -stable release > > > after they get into Linus's tree. You can ask for an exception > > > (sooner, later, different patch) and Greg (or any other stable > > > maintainer) tries to be accommodating. But you have to remember to ask. > > > > > > I would rather that the default was that patches don't go into -stable > > > until they have > > > - been in a full release from Linus and > > > - been in a Linus's tree for at least 2 weeks. > > > (or 1 week times the age of the target in releases. > > > So a fix in 4.4 get to 4.3-stable after a week, 4.2-stable > > > after 2 weeks etc .... maybe I'm going over-board here). > > > > > > Many fixes are important but simply aren't that urgent so the two or > > > more weeks is no great cost. > > > > I'd actually argue that Linus shouldn't be pulling *anything* that wasn't in > > -next for 2+ weeks. There's no good excuse to want something pulled immediately > > as the only benefit Linus's tree provides in that aspect is the wider testing > > it receives, so it would make sense to weed out more bugs in -next before they > > get to Linus. > > As long as there is a clear 2 week window between a patch being "out > there for wide testing" and being auto-pulled into a -stable, I would > see an improvement. > > However I'm not at all convinced that being in -next is really "out > there for wide testing". Agreed. I'm not even sure about -rcs from Linus for that matter. Unfortunately, -stable often get's wide testing before anything else. > Certainly some testing happens in -next, but my understand is that it is > mainly about integration testing, not burn-in testing. > > Isn't the point of the 2-week merge window is that we all stop writing > more bugs and instead start testing to find each others bugs? You seem > to want to make the previous two weeks fill that role. I don't think > that would work. I guess the idea is to avoid exposing -stable users to commits that mainline users have not been really exposed to yet. It really is a matter of what is marked for -stable IMO. Some of those things should not really carry a "Cc: stable" tag until they've received some wider testing in the mainline. > > I think that this is a small mind-shift from thinking about Linus's tree as > > an integration tree to considering it as mostly bug-free code, and stop > > merging in risky patches. We already have -next for that. > > I certainly do see Linus's tree as mostly bug-free code. Certainly I > don't submit something until I'm reasonably confident. Unfortunately I > am sometimes wrong. Usually by rc8 it is a lot closer to bug-free. > That steady improvement is the whole point. So going from rc8 to > stable makes lots more sense than going from rc1 to stable. Agreed. Thanks, Rafael