[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] When to push bug fixes to mainline
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 22:10 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:43:09PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 12:11 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > > People mark stable patches that way already today with a:
> > > Cc: stable <> # delay for 3.12-rc4
> > > or some such wording. I take those and don't apply them until the noted
> > > release happens, so you can do this if needed.
> >
> > I guess the thing is, are stable patches prone to regressions. Do we
> > just do that for patches that we think are too complex and may cause
> > some harm. Of course, there's the question about having a clue about
> > what patches might cause harm or not.
> We'd probably better switch the tag to be "# now" to imply that we don't
> want to delay them, and that by default those merged prior to rc4 are all
> postponed.

I think this might work. I definitely agree that most fixes aren't
worth the risk of allowing into a stable release that quickly, so it's
the right default.

> I suspect that the switching could be mostly automated this way,
> avoiding to add burden to Greg :
> - if commit ID >= -rc4
> move to immediate queue, it's a "critical" fix as per Linus' rules
> - if Cc: stable line has "now" at the end, move to immediate queue as
> the maintainer takes this reponsibility ;
> - otherwise move to the next .2 queue.

I can't speak for Greg, but that seems reasonably easy to implement.
(Which I would have to do, as I was unable to reuse Greg's scripts.)


Ben Hutchings
Humans are not rational beings; they are rationalising beings.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-17 05:21    [W:0.127 / U:1.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site