From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: To: Jiri Kosina , "Luck, Tony" References: <5780334E.8020801@roeck-us.net> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F3A15659B@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> From: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <5780BCB3.6070300@roeck-us.net> Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 01:58:27 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/09/2016 01:34 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote: [ ... ] > > The model I'd really love to see is "a person/group of people > (maintainers) are identified and appointed responsible for what end up in > -stable for particular subsystem", i.e. the same model we use for mainline > development. > [ ... ] > > The usual counter-argument I've always received from the stable team to > that was "Maintainers are busy enough already, if we start enforcing this, > we'd have much less patches in -stable". I personally don't see that as a > bad thing. "Less is more" might apply here. If someone is really unhappy > about state of particular subsystem in -stable, it'd mean that group of > maintainers will have to be extended for that particular subsystem. > Agreed, especially in the context of concerns that too many patches find their way into stable releases. Guenter