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 2F710B1D for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:18:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-f66.google.com (mail-oi0-f66.google.com [209.85.218.66]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71A5F11A for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 19:18:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by oige126 with SMTP id e126so870612oig.3 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:18:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: geert.uytterhoeven@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <55A55CA5.6050506@oracle.com> References: <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> <20150714155648.GA11162@sirena.org.uk> <55A55CA5.6050506@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:18:00 +0200 Message-ID: From: Geert Uytterhoeven To: Sasha Levin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "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 Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 07/14/2015 11:56 AM, Mark Brown wrote: >>>> If the issue being fixed is serious enough to take out substantial >>>> > > portion of our test coverage or affect a lot of other development >>>> > > usage then that's really disruptive to other work, it impacts things >>>> > > like bisection for example. A strong rule does nobody any good, >>>> > > it's overkill for the problem. >>> > If there's an issue that causes that effect then the original commit that >>> > caused it should be reverted rather than introducing an untested fix right >>> > away. >>> > Obviously not a hard rule, but it should be the case in general. >> That's still sending a change of course which was what was being >> objected to. > > Lesser of two evils? I can't really come up with a safer solution rather than > reverting it (not blindly, the revert will need an ack too, and that's assuming > that the fix is not trivial). And that it can be reverted, i.e. there are no later commits that depend on it. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds