On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 01:24:18PM +0100, James Bottomley wrote:

> I absolutely agree.  That's why I said our process is expediency
> based:  you have to trade off the value of applying the patch vs the
> probability of introducing bugs.  However the maintainers are mostly
> considering this which is why stable is largely free from trivial but
> pointless patches.  The rule should be: if it doesn't fix a user
> visible bug, it doesn't go into stable.

It's not just maintainers any more - in particular we've got Sasha's
neural net thing picking patches as well and it's substantially more
trigger happy than at least I am.  People do get a chance to review what
it's picking but that's different to maintainers picking things.