From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E355A1062 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 14:37:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt0-f195.google.com (mail-qt0-f195.google.com [209.85.216.195]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F8DA70D for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 14:37:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f195.google.com with SMTP id k38-v6so16395567qtk.11 for ; Fri, 07 Sep 2018 07:37:10 -0700 (PDT) To: Guenter Roeck , Sasha Levin , Linus Torvalds References: <20180904201620.GC16300@sasha-vm> <20180905101710.73137669@gandalf.local.home> <20180907004944.GD16300@sasha-vm> <20180907014930.GE16300@sasha-vm> <2534be10-2e70-6932-39c1-7caca2cff044@roeck-us.net> From: Laura Abbott Message-ID: <4990d2c1-6f26-0500-9afa-986a61fce3bf@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 07:37:06 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2534be10-2e70-6932-39c1-7caca2cff044@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Bug-introducing patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 09/06/2018 07:52 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 09/06/2018 06:49 PM, Sasha Levin via Ksummit-discuss wrote: >> >> This is a *huge* reason why we see regressions in Stable. Take a look at >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2018-September/005287.html >> for a list of recent user visible regressions the CoreOS folks have >> observed this year. Do you want to know when they were merged? Let me >> help you: all but one were merged in -rc5 or later. >> > > My conclusion from that would be that patches are applied to stable > before they had time to soak in mainline. Your argument against > accepting patches into mainline might as well be applied to patches > applied to stable. > > I think you are a bit hypocritical arguing that patches should be > restricted from being accepted into mainline ... when at the same > time patches are at least sometimes applied almost immediately to > stable releases from there. Plus, some if not many of the patches > applied to stable releases nowadays don't really fix critical or > even severe bugs. If the patches mentioned above indeed caused > regressions in mainline, those regressions should have been found > and fixed _before_ the patches made it into stable releases. > Blaming mainline for the problem is just shifting the blame. > > I would argue that, if anything, the rules for accepting patches into > _stable_ releases should be much more strict than they are today. > If anything, we need to look into that, not into restricting patch > access to mainline. Part of my proposal for a longer -rc time for stable was for this exact problem: patches that have been merged in mainline but tagged for stable may not have had time to test to find all bugs. The thought was a longer stable -rc cycle would help in finding those. I think you've hit upon the real problem though which is that the patches probably shouldn't have been in stable in the first place. Thanks, Laura