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 6E72171 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:27:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 056101CA for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:27:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:27:30 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Dmitry Torokhov Message-ID: <20160804082730.GD27204@kroah.com> References: <3268954.rXb0BJAX6c@vostro.rjw.lan> <87oa5aqjmq.fsf@intel.com> <20160803110935.GA26270@kroah.com> <87a8guq9y8.fsf@intel.com> <20160803132607.GA31662@kroah.com> <20160803141937.GA9180@kroah.com> <57A21252.7000407@roeck-us.net> <20160803161234.GA32965@dtor-ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160803161234.GA32965@dtor-ws> Cc: James Bottomley , Trond Myklebust , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:12:34AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 08:48:34AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > On 08/03/2016 07:45 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > >On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > >>>Has anything changed in the process that'd just make patches like this one > > >>>to be not merged these days? > > >> > > >>We have Guenter's test-bot that has helped out immensely here with this. > > > > > >That's very good to know, I admit that I have close to zero idea about how > > >the stable -rcs are being tested. > > > > > > > ... and when it doesn't work because I messed it up, we get issues such as 3.18 > > and 4.1 being broken for mips and sparc64 because a couple of patches which don't > > apply to those kernels were tagged with an unqualified Cc: stable and applied. > > > > So, if anything, the one problem I see with the current stable process is > > those unqualified stable tags. Maybe those should be deprecated; expecting > > stable maintainers to figure out if a patch applies to a given stable branch > > or not is a bit too much to ask for. With stable releases as far back as > > 3.2 (or 338,020 commits as of right now) it is almost guaranteed that a > > patch tagged with an unqualified Cc: stable doesn't apply to all branches. > > When I put cc:stable it is simply a suggestion for stable maintainers to > figure out if this commit is suitable for _their_ stable. I might have > an idea about n-1.x stable series but I certainly do not have any desire > nor time to research whether this patch applicable to 3.2 or 3.0 stable > series. Nor should you be expected to. > Stable maintaintership should be more than "swipe in everything marked > as cc:stable, try compiling and hope it all good". It is, at times, a bit more than that :) Maybe that's why there are very few people doing this work, it's not as simple as just "throw it all in and hope"... thanks, greg k-h