[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review
    On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Jonathan Nieder <> wrote:
    > Felipe Contreras wrote:
    >> But then are you saying that if upstream is broken (3.4-rc2), then
    >> stable should be broken as well (3.3.1), and remain broken until
    >> upstream is fixed? I fail to see what would be the point of that.
    > No, he's saying that when upstream is broken for the same reason as
    > stable is, it seems wise to:
    >  - report upstream
    >  - fix your local system
    >  - fix any systems you are responsible for
    >  - fix upstream
    >  - only then fix stable.

    I'm not sure those steps were followed for this particular patch on
    v3.3.1, but lets assume they where. Now what happens when:

    - you realize the fix made matters worst, in fact, so worst that the
    whole thing is unusable in some systems

    Presumably we are now in the next round of:

    - fix upstream

    But v.3.3.2 is due Friday, which makes it very likely that the fix
    won't get in. And what did we gain? If you simplify the situation to
    what you explained above, it seems very reasonable, but that's not the
    whole picture.

    Felipe Contreras
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-12 23:37    [W:0.023 / U:10.448 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site