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 ESMTP id 659B785D for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 04:09:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.active-venture.com (mail.active-venture.com [67.228.131.205]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 010D61FAB5 for ; Sat, 31 May 2014 04:09:06 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <538955D3.2020902@roeck-us.net> Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 21:08:51 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH , Theodore Ts'o References: <20140528233145.GA14933@cloud> <1401344001.27691.4.camel@dabdike> <20140529233459.GD11741@kroah.com> <1401423973.2163.26.camel@dabdike> <20140530050220.GA2505@kroah.com> <1401427998.2163.37.camel@dabdike> <20140530165646.GZ25041@thunk.org> <538933F1.4030009@huawei.com> <20140531020702.GD20492@thunk.org> <20140531035255.GB2849@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20140531035255.GB2849@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] More productive uses of enthusiastic new kernel developers List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 05/30/2014 08:52 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:07:02PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 09:44:17AM +0800, Li Zefan wrote: >>> This is similar to my idea in "stable issues" to find a co-maintainer >>> for Greg to do this work. While I sugguest to find a experienced and >>> trustful person, you sugguest newcomers. >>> >>> I share the same concern with David, and I doubt newcompers are >>> enthusiastic in doing backport for stable trees. >> >> All I can say is that I've seen it work. Granted, it was in a >> corporate environment, where if the person gets stuck, they can easily >> call for help from a teammate at an adjacent desk. The commits were >> also in generally well annotated with testing instructions, and all of >> the patches went through a code review process. And, while these >> people may have been newcomers to kernel programming, they had all >> passed the Google hiring interview process. > > I think you just listed all of the reasons why this is a totally > different environment from the "normal" stable kernel patch backport > process. > > Not to mention the fact that we don't usually have tests for any > specific patch, to ensure that they fix what they say they do, and that > nothing got messed up in the backport. > Exactly - I could not have said it better. Guenter