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 681FD71 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:01:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mezzanine.sirena.org.uk (mezzanine.sirena.org.uk [106.187.55.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB968172 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 17:01:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 18:01:26 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: James Bottomley Message-ID: <20160804170126.GC10383@sirena.org.uk> References: <20160803132607.GA31662@kroah.com> <1470232658.2482.42.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1470233095.2482.46.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160803212332.576bb718@grimm.local.home> <20160804082018.GA27204@kroah.com> <20160804093355.30096bbe@gandalf.local.home> <20160804154444.GA10323@sirena.org.uk> <1470326213.2411.26.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dkEUBIird37B8yKS" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1470326213.2411.26.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Cc: 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: , --dkEUBIird37B8yKS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 08:56:53AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > What I'm pointing out is that Fixes: has uses that go way beyond > stable. That's why I do think it's good practice for the kernel. It's > something we should already be doing that can assist the stable > process, not something that's just been invented for the purpose. Right, I'm not saying it's not good practice just that I don't think insisting on it as a matter of pure process and bookeeping is the best way forwards - if people are providing it because it's good practice and they've done the analysis against upstream that's great but if someone is filling it in because they've got to check that box on the form I'm less convinced. I'm not sure that the degredation in the quality of information that gets recorded (I'm pretty sure I at least don't have the capacity to actively verify every Fixes tag), or cases where fixes don't end up in stable because the submitter doesn't care about that, are going to be worth it. I've had some bad experiences with some similar reporting requirements in the past - if people aren't actively engaged and supportive they end up working around rather than with the process which can make it harder to use the information later on. Perhaps I'm overreacting to those but I'd much rather see this promoted as good practice than a stick to beat people with. --dkEUBIird37B8yKS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXo3TiAAoJECTWi3JdVIfQdh4H/ReQGNSF238p2hdNk6N+Ebll ze8kt3YOl18qlnuMSTyE5LYMhvxCtl7XJa7lLJAhgRoJAIPZB5d5g+z1VUThdjQa jgg3MTMh75tQMmBtdudNkf9XZXD0wyibGhzfHqWz3l42XJrdXu//46gWIWhU9O0U SOBFFgntZYRT6AoAd+50yv1qxJf6zBvNmuT+IRmuG8/sVWoyH7EVkiW05yzPCRAf wiNIqRpn48d+R0QKjUer0VCerme/NEwGqdwV1KU8EgkA77ev8lunLNlcnlMDniz4 zCg6tche6POZNyZm7tb3xn7u9YOFH8ASy/jeP9ys15kig3lZC4WirV9DqSQkDL0= =4tal -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --dkEUBIird37B8yKS--