From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <w@1wt.eu>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D4CCE892
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  3 May 2018 14:49:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from 1wt.eu (wtarreau.pck.nerim.net [62.212.114.60])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0562677
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu,  3 May 2018 14:49:01 +0000 (UTC)
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Message-ID: <20180503144850.GC23311@1wt.eu>
References: <20180501163818.GD1468@sasha-vm> <20180501194450.GD10479@thunk.org>
	<20180501200019.GA7397@sasha-vm> <20180501205448.GE10479@thunk.org>
	<877eol808s.fsf@intel.com>
	<1525357984.3225.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1525357984.3225.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
	<ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches
List-Id: <ksummit-discuss.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/ksummit-discuss>,
	<mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss>,
	<mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2018 14:49:02 -0000

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 07:33:04AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> They're definitely for bug fixes, but there's a spectrum: obvious bug
> fixes with no side effects are easy to justify.  More complex bug fixes
> run the risk of having side effects which introduce other bugs, so
> could potentially destabilize the -rc process.  In SCSI we tend to look
> at what the user visible effects of the bug are in the post -rc5 region
> and if they're slight or wouldn't be visible to most users, we'll hold
> them over.  If the fix looks complex and we're not sure we caught the
> ramifications, we often add it to the merge window tree with a cc to
> stable and a note saying to wait X weeks before actually adding to the
> stable tree just to make sure no side effects show up with wider
> testing.  So, as with most things, it's a judgment call for the
> maintainer.

For me this is the right, and responsible way to deal with bug fixes.
Self-control is much more efficient than random rejection and favors
a good analysis.

Willy