lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review
    On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Greg KH wrote:

    > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:43:33PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
    > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote:
    > > > On 12 April 2012 09:49, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > >>>
    > > >>> A revert is the same as a patch.  It needs to be in Linus's tree before
    > > >>> I can add it to the stable releases.
    > > >>
    > > >> Right, because otherwise people's systems would actually work.
    > > >>
    > > >> But hey, as I said, following rules is more important, regardless of
    > > >> what the rules are, and why they are there. The rules that actually
    > > >> triggered this issue in v3.3.1, as this is not in v3.3.
    > > >>
    > > >> You could just accept that the patch should have never landed in
    > > >> v3.3.1 in the first place, but it's much easier to arbitrarily keep
    > > >> stacking patches without thinking too much about them.
    > > >
    > > > Greg is doing the right thing here. We face the same deal in FreeBSD -
    > > > people want fixes to go into a release branch first, but if you do
    > > > that you break the development flow - which is "stuff goes into -HEAD
    > > > and is then backported to the release branches."
    > > >
    > > > If you don't do this, you risk having people do (more, all)
    > > > development and testing on a release branch and never test -HEAD (or
    > > > "upstream linux" here). Once you open that particular flood gate, it's
    > > > hard to close.
    > >
    > > But this is exactly the opposite; the patch that broke things is in
    > > the 'release branch' (3.3.1); it's not in upstream (3.3). Sure, it's
    > > also on a later upstream, which is also broken.
    >
    > What is the git commit id of the patch in 3.3.1 that caused this to
    > break? This is the first time I have heard that 3.3 worked and 3.3.1
    > did not work. Someone needs to tell me these things...

    Should be

    db6a6a78d8602964c9dfb1d8ce18daefd92da0a7 in stable/linux-3.3.y
    c1afdaff90538ef085b756454f12b29575411214 in linux/master

    c'ya
    sven-haegar

    --
    Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
    - Ben F.
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-12 23:01    [W:4.107 / U:0.328 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site