Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Stable trees and release time

[Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>]

On Wed, 05 Sep 2018 17:39:21 +0100
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:

> > Just randomly scrolling through those, I am wondering how at least
> > 
> > 	7797167ffde1f00446301cb22b37b7c03194cfaf
> > 	3b885ac1dc35b87a39ee176a6c7e2af9c789d8b8
> > 
> > made it past any stable tree acceptance criteria.
> > 
> > They are memory ordering changes (so exactly area which is generally 
> > fragile by itself and the risk of regressions simply can't be
> > completely ignored), yet they fix absolutely no functional issue.
> > 
> > In addition to that, they all exist upstream only for one single -rc,
> > so the public testing exposure is also currently minimal.
> > 
> > Yeah, I know I know, those are parisc, so noone cares anyway :P but
> > that's really just the first randomly chosen kernel, with a small
> > number of patches, and still 10% of them are something we'd not want
> > to put into an enterprise distro kernel without a lot of
> > justification and regression testing.  
> 
> [puts PA-RISC hat on]
> 
> The maintainers believe these two patches will fix a persistent
> segmentation fault problem that's blocking forward progress on the
> debian parisc port.  So, given the parisc specificity of the patches
> and the maintainer input, I very much think they fit the criteria.

But the change logs don't mention anything about that. The only thing
the change logs talk about is that this has performance improvements.
Was this info embargoed for some reason?

-- Steve