[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] KS Topic request: Handling the Stable kernel, let's dump the cc: stable tag
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:43:36AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:20 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > I think the real stable issue that _everyone_ keeps ignoring, is my
> > original complaint, in that people are using the -rc1 merge window to
> > get fixes in they should have sent to Linus for .0.
> You mean we delay fixes to the merge window (tagged for stable) because
> we can't get them into Linus' tree at -rc5 on? Guilty ... that's
> because the friction for getting stuff in rises. It's a big fight to
> get something marginal in after -rc5 ... it's easy to silently tag it
> for stable (did I mention that I think the tag part enables this
> behaviour?).

I'll just chime-in here and agree that I have delayed minor fixes,
preventing them from being merged during an -rc6 or -rc7 but tagging
them for -stable. It has long been 'tradition' (at least in the
networking space) that fixes so late in the cycle should tend to be
really small (i.e. "one-liners") and/or really, really, important.
In other words, they need to avoid potentially delaying a release
unless they are absolutely necessary.

Fixes merged early in the next release cycle at least have a fighting
chance of getting some testing before getting into the hands of the
unwashed masses. If they have problems in 3.<previous>.1 then they
can still be reverted in -stable, but they can never be removed from
the .0 release -- does this matter? I'm not sure. Is having a flood
of fixes in x.y.1 any worse than having to got to an -rc8 or an -rc9?

John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you might be all we have. Be ready.

 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-17 18:01    [W:0.093 / U:2.540 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site