lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review
    On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 06:43:06PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
    > I understand you use 'stable' as guarantee, and I know it works, but
    > do you *need* this guarantee?
    >
    > And before you go on why you need this guarantee to avoid fixes to be
    > lost, this is an *entirely different thing*; we are not talking about
    > fixes in 'stable' that don't exist in mainline--for which there is
    > evidence that those caused problems in the past, we are talking about
    > reverting patches from 'stable' that are not part of the upstream
    > release from where the 'stable' branch was forked--*nobody* has showed
    > any evidence that this has happened before and caused issues.

    Why make a special case for the version from which stable was derived ?
    That doesn't make sense at all to me since by definition, *all* patches
    that are in stable were not in this version !

    Take it simpler if you want : *all* patches in stable need an upstream
    commit ID, whether they're backports or reverts. You don't revert a
    patch from stable, you backport a revert from upstream.

    Willy



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-14 18:05    [W:4.577 / U:0.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site