lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review
    From
    On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Stefan Richter
    <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
    > On Apr 12 Felipe Contreras wrote:
    >> 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.
    >            ^^^^^
    > No, upstream /earlier/ than 3.3.1 contains the defect.

    Time is not relevant for the point being made, but fine:

    But this is exactly the opposite; the patch that broke things is in
    the 'release branch' (3.3.1); it's not in the upstream release from
    where stable began (3.3). Sure, it's also on upstream, which is also
    broken.

    > Furthermore, consider this:  You as user of the 3.3.y series are using a
    > temporary, dead-end side branch.  Its maintenance will stop at some point,
    > and you will be left looking for a different, maintained series to migrate
    > to.  You will be most interested in that series /not/ containing any
    > regressions that you suffered already through the 3.3.y lifetime.

    Of course, I will be interested in that, although most likely I would
    be switching to another stable release (v3.4.1), not the upstream
    release (v3.4), and most distros would do the same. Even in the
    unlikely event that v3.4 is broken, most likely v3.4.1 would contain
    the fix. But I'm also interested in v3.3.2 working.

    So you are saying that:

    a) v3.3.1 (bad), v3.3.2 (bad), v3.4 (good)
    b) v3.3.1 (bad), v3.3.2 (good), v3.4 (bad)
    c) v3.3.1 (bad), v3.3.2 (good), v3.4 (good)

    b) is clearly better than a). Well, I don't see how; both situations
    have the same number of releases broken, plus b) is very unlikely
    anyway and we would end up with c). Plus, in all situation v3.4.1
    would most likely contain the fix anyway.

    > The rule is there to protect you, as a user of the stable series, from
    > repeated regressions.

    So in order to avoid b), you would rather go into a), than c)? Sorry,
    I most definitely don't *need* that "protection". I guess I should
    avoid the "stable" series then.

    Cheers.

    --
    Felipe Contreras
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-04-13 12:33    [W:0.023 / U:0.548 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site