From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 23:12:09 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Steven Rostedt Message-ID: <20180907211209.GA23419@kroah.com> References: <20180904201620.GC16300@sasha-vm> <20180905101710.73137669@gandalf.local.home> <20180907004944.GD16300@sasha-vm> <20180906210931.2ea15bd9@vmware.local.home> <20180907201224.GD25756@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180907201224.GD25756@kroah.com> 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 Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 10:12:24PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > 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. Ok, my mistake, I was looking at stuff that hit between -rc1 and -rc2 as well as -rc1 patches, so I might be totally wrong here. It just "feels" a little odd that some of those patches had such "old" dates on them... Anyway, no rant from me at the moment :) greg k-h