lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] KS Topic request: Handling the Stable kernel, let's dump the cc: stable tag
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:

> > The solution, to me, looks simple: Let's co-opt a process we already
> > know how to do: mailing list review and tree handling. So the proposal
> > is simple:
> >
> > 1. Drop the cc: stable@ tag: it makes it way too easy to add an ill
> > reviewed patch to stable
> > 2. All patches to stable should follow current review rules: They
> > should go to the mailing list the original patch was sent to
> > once the original is upstream as a request for stable.
> > 3. Following debate on the list, the original maintainer would be
> > responsible for collecting the patches (including the upstream
> > commit) adjudicating on them and passing them on to stable after
> > list review (either by git tree pull or email to stable@).
> >
> > I contend this raises the bar for adding patches to stable much higher,
> > which seems to be needed, and adds a review stage which involves all the
> > original reviewers.
>
> I don't like this at all, just for the simple reason that it will push
> the majority of the work of stable kernel development on to the
> subsystem maintainers, who have enough work to do as it is.

Sorry Greg, but I disagree.

If the point of the stable tree really is about rock-solid stability, the
"it applies without fuzz and there was no explicit NACK" just isn't
enough. Someone who actually understands the code (maintainer) should
absolutely give his Acked-for-stable-by: (*), otherwise the result is much
less trustworthy.

I think 991f76f83 might serve as a good example. It has been marked "Cc:
stable", it applied without cleanly, so it has been applied to all the
existing stable trees, including 3.0.

The problem is that one has to actually perform a review of the patch with
respect to 3.0.x codebase to notice that the pre-requisity for this patch
(ef3d0fd27e) is only present in 3.2 and later, and hasn't been marked for
stable (which is correct, it has no business there).

(*) For me personally, the best mode of operation would actually be to
have for-stable/3.x branches in my git tree, cherry-pick from other
topic branches once the patches are in Linus' tree, and send you pull
request for stable regularly (for each stable branch separately of
course)

This model would make maintainers clearly responsible for the contents
of stable tree, wouldn't cause any extra work for you (quite the
contrary, I'd say), and it'd follow the development model we have for
Linus' tree.

--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-16 03:21    [W:0.229 / U:2.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site