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 5E803B8B for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:26:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from v094114.home.net.pl (v094114.home.net.pl [79.96.170.134]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B8CDF114 for ; Fri, 17 Jul 2015 00:26:17 +0000 (UTC) From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Greg KH Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 02:52:56 +0200 Message-ID: <2709187.AHyDES0qnE@vostro.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <20150716033642.GA7077@kroah.com> References: <55A33E48.2040202@oracle.com> <55A6E144.4070300@oracle.com> <20150716033642.GA7077@kroah.com> 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 Wednesday, July 15, 2015 08:36:42 PM Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 06:40:04PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: > > On 07/15/2015 06:34 PM, Greg KH wrote: > > >> What's the reasoning for doing it 1 per week? To get fixes out earlier? > > > Because if I don't, the number of patches are just too large for one > > > release. And also it's good to get fixes out as soon as possible, right > > > now I'm running a few weeks behind and people are getting annoyed... > > > > If the issue is just the size of the release then -rc might work here: > > rather than release once a week, you can finalize a release a week > > after it's been an -rc: > > > > week 1: 4.2.1-rc1 > > week 2: 4.2.1, 4.2.2-rc1 > > week 3: 4.2.2, 4.2.3-rc1 > > [...] > > Ugh, that's just going to drive everyone crazy and confused. Not to > mention a lot more work for me, and honestly, I'm pushed to my limit > with the number of stable/LTS kernels I'm handling right now. > > And I doubt anyone will actually run the -rc releases, other than the > testers I have today :) > > So I'll just leave things as-is, because it has worked pretty well for > the past decade. There's always going to be bugs and regressions, > that's software. What matters is how quickly they can be responded to. I tend to agree here. To me, there is a tradeoff between being fairly aggressive with pushing fixes into -stable and spending more time on making them receive wider testing before they go there. The lack of balance either way will make someone unhappy. Thanks, Rafael