From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 22:12:24 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Steven Rostedt Message-ID: <20180907201224.GD25756@kroah.com> References: <20180904201620.GC16300@sasha-vm> <20180905101710.73137669@gandalf.local.home> <20180907004944.GD16300@sasha-vm> <20180906210931.2ea15bd9@vmware.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180906210931.2ea15bd9@vmware.local.home> Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Bug-introducing patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 09:09:31PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 00:51:42 +0000 > Sasha Levin wrote: > > > Assuming you've read the original mail, it appears that most parties who > > participated in the discussion agreed that there's an issue where > > patches that go in during (late) -rc cycles seems to be less tested and > > are buggier than they should be. > > > > Most of that thread discussed possible solutions such as: > > > > - Not taking non-critical patches past -rcX (-rc4 seemed to be a > > popular one). > > - -rc patches must fix something introduced in the current merge > > window. Patches fixing anything older should go in the next merge > > window. > > Interesting, because this is exactly what Linus blew up about that made > headlines and a loss of a kernel developer 5 years ago: > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1373593870.17876.70.camel@gandalf.local.home/T/#mb7018718ce288b55fe041778721004cd62cd00a1 And it turns out that today I am feeling the same way again as I said so here: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20130711214830.611455274@linuxfoundation.org/ Looking at the patches in this -rc1 merge window that were marked for stable, and some of the dates of them (really old for some subsystems), it makes me "wonder" why they were postponed so for -rc1, and didn't go into the -final release. I know I have done this for "small" patches, or stuff that comes in late in the -rc cycle that just really does not matter much. Or for things that I want to see "bake" in linux-next more. But even with that, I don't think that's what is happening here, I think maintainers are just waiting until -rc1 as it's "easier". I really have no other explaination. Now I can't reject the patches as they are good fixes, and they are now in Linus's tree. But the "delay" is worrying to me. I don't know what to do about it... Look at what comes out in this next round of stable releases, and tell me that all of those really deserved to wait for -rc1. thanks, greg k-h