Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Jul 2013 09:42:34 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Lang <> | Subject | Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] When to push bug fixes to mainline |
| |
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:19:16 -0700 (PDT), > David Lang wrote: >> >> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> >>> And maybe in the end, having 1/10 patch cause a regression is not *that* >>> dramatic, and probably less than not fixing the 9 other bugs. In one case >>> we rely on -stable to merge the 10 fixes, and on the other case we'd rely >>> on -stable to just revert one of them. >> >> Apologies for the late post, I'm catching up on things, but this jumped out at >> me. >> >> We went through a LOT of pain several years ago when people got into the mindset >> that a patch was acceptable if it fixed more people than it broke. eliminating >> that mindset did wonders for kernel stability. >> >> Regressions are a lot more of a negative than bugfixes are a positive, a 10:1 >> ratio of fixes to regressions is _not_ good enough. > > IMO, one of the reasons is the nature of stable-release: the stable > tree is released soon after reviews of patches, so no actual > regression tests can be done before the release. > > For finding a regression, patch reviews won't be enough; all patches > have been already reviewed, thus essentially they must be all > positive/good fixes. And the compile is OK. So what's the problem? > > Maybe some QA period before the release might help, but who would > care? (Especially under the situation where everybody has own x.y > stable tree?)
I am not saying that no regressions will happen (for exactly the reasons that you are giving).
what I am complaining about is the attitude that a few regressions are Ok, as long as there are more fixes than there are regressions.
David Lang
| |