lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: When to push bug fixes to mainline
    On 2013/7/12 8:50, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
    > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:01:17PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
    >> <rant>
    >> I'm sitting on top of over 170 more patches that have been marked for
    >> the stable releases right now that are not included in this set of
    >> releases. The fact that there are this many patches for stable stuff
    >> that are waiting to be merged through the main -rc1 merge window cycle
    >> is worrying to me.
    >>
    >> Why are subsystem maintainers holding on to fixes that are
    >> _supposedly_ affecting all users? I mean, 21 powerpc core changes
    >> that I don't see until a -rc1 merge? It's as if developers don't
    >> expect people to use a .0 release and are relying on me to get the
    >> fixes they have burried in their trees out to users. That's not that
    >> nice. 6 "core" iscsi-target fixes? That's the sign of either a
    >> broken subsystem maintainer, or a lack of understanding what the
    >> normal -rc kernel releases are supposed to be for.
    >
    > At least at one point in the past, the rule that Linus had laid down
    > after discussing things at Kernel Summits was after -rc2, or maybe
    > -rc3 at the latest, the ***only*** fixes that should be sent to Linus
    > would be for regression fixes or for really serious data integrity
    > issues. The concern was that people were pushing bug fixes in -rc5 or
    > -rc6 that were in some cases causing regressions.
    >
    > (As I recall, Linus laid down the law regarding this policy in his own
    > inimitable and colorful style; which today would result in all sorts
    > of tsk, tsking on Hacker News regarding his language. :-)
    >
    > In any case, I've been very conservative in _not_ pushing bug fixes to
    > Linus after -rc3 (unless they are fixing a regression or the bug fix
    > is super-serious); I'd much rather have them cook in the ext4 tree
    > where they can get a lot more testing (a full regression test run for
    > ext4 takes over 24 hours), and for people trying out linux-next.
    >
    > Maybe the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of holding back
    > changes and trying to avoid the risk of introducing regressions;
    > perhaps this would be a good topic to discuss at the Kernel Summit.
    >

    Looks like each maintainer may have his rule which may differ from the
    rule laid down by Linus.

    I have 2 network patches which went into 3.10-rc6, though these two bugs
    are not regressions but has been there even before the git history.

    On the other hand, 2 of my cgroup bug fixes were queued for 3.11 with
    stable tag added.

    And what about Documentation fixes and updates? Should those patches
    also follow Linus' rule? I guess people have different opinions.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2013-07-12 06:01    [W:4.649 / U:0.840 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site