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 43D5BBA2 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:31:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (userp1040.oracle.com [156.151.31.81]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E722103 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:31:40 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <55A5635D.1020600@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:30:37 -0400 From: Sasha Levin MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Rostedt 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> <20150714104623.GQ11162@sirena.org.uk> <55A51548.4040502@oracle.com> <20150714152515.GX11162@sirena.org.uk> <55A52B8B.5060606@oracle.com> <20150714113829.4b618d9a@gandalf.local.home> <55A53074.7040109@oracle.com> <20150714120225.65e489cc@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20150714120225.65e489cc@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , "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 07/14/2015 12:02 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:53:24 -0400 > Sasha Levin wrote: > > >> > The point I'm trying to make is that a bad patch in Linus' tree has a wider >> > ripple effect than what it were in the past, while Linus might consider a bad >> > patch in one of the -rc releases something minor since "no one should be using >> > it for production" it really isn't the case any more, those patches can and >> > will end up with the folks who don't want to have them. > I have to ask, why? > > Just because a stable tag is on a patch it automatically gets pulled > into stable? What about waiting a while before pulling in those > patches? Wait till -rc2 is out before pulling in any patches marked for > stable in -rc1. Then wait for -rc3 to pull in the patches that were > added in -rc2. But don't pull in any patches that has a "Fixes" to it > in the next -rc release. > > That is, when -rc2 is released, only pull in the patches marked for > stable in -rc1 if there were no Fixes tags for them in -rc2. And so on. > > Again, just placing stuff in -next isn't going to solve this. It may > help, but you will still have fixes that breaks things when they get > into Linus's tree no matter how long they were in -next. This is simply > because Linus's tree has a wider audience. But hopefully, the next > release candidate will have the fixes for anything that breaks in the > previous release candidate. I agree that this would be enough for -stable. But wouldn't you agree that the policy of not passing patches in -rc cycles through -next at all is incorrect? I'm fine with not having a minimal time it must live in -next, but I really think that it should be in -next at some point. Thanks, Sasha