From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 251687AA for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:45:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk (mezzanine.sirena.org.uk [106.187.55.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 356A31F3 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 14:45:28 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:45:08 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20160803144508.GQ10376@sirena.org.uk> References: <871t27s1i8.fsf@intel.com> <20160802153400.GD10376@sirena.org.uk> <3268954.rXb0BJAX6c@vostro.rjw.lan> <87oa5aqjmq.fsf@intel.com> <20160803110935.GA26270@kroah.com> <87a8guq9y8.fsf@intel.com> <20160803132607.GA31662@kroah.com> <1470232658.2482.42.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0FDNE3+7N8PCoNAN" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1470232658.2482.42.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --0FDNE3+7N8PCoNAN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:57:38AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > This isn't a viable approach. Firstly stable review is less thorough > than upstream review because the review mostly goes "yes, I already > reviewed this in upstream". Secondly, if the upstream review didn't > catch the problems why would we suddenly catch them in a stable review? Some of the stable trees don't even want the review - the -ckt ones for example don't seem to leave any gap between sending out the "this patch will be added" mails and the applied mails and I guess they're happy with the results (I have to confess I killfiled their mails at some point). > The fact that possibly no-one reviewed the upstream patch indicates the > need for a better upstream process (so something like we now have in > SCSI which is no patches applied without one review tag), but expecting > stable to fix our upstream process isn't going to work. I think the concern here is fixes that are valid upstream but rely on context that hasn't been backported. --0FDNE3+7N8PCoNAN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXogNwAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQX2kH/2aoD/mIcgmscnvJAeadqk/m roVkGRf4lAo+6QesLB0H1QmmUvtQ+xUUQsVcn8FMOuqA01qQbeDHnmW373RTnckg kL6JzgB+5pfmPoKlyMUbw2jaHKW8k6WnxIPcOtlNRiomeh+X+FPmHlvUEayKDPtU jtYc1Y23T6LefFQi2g0EVbXHcOVxuERtHQwP2lTsLiYvEY5dX/na46VzUVFv7tLY 0z9s4Giuidefs+1tRSE8immSR9/qPMkSXT8Hr7YVthfG2f//WTKDtcwPoKsrJ9f9 sLWbfQQXmuhKKEJfObQK4QAZ53bVTJWoz1qiRi/N1w3AD54k+X7fJMyDp7rXwUk= =RInH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --0FDNE3+7N8PCoNAN--