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 0CF5C258 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 13:33:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net (bh-25.webhostbox.net [208.91.199.152]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 968DA143 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 13:33:23 +0000 (UTC) To: Jiri Kosina , Takashi Iwai References: <5780334E.8020801@roeck-us.net> <20160709001046.GH28589@dtor-ws> <91774112.AKkGksYjl6@vostro.rjw.lan> <20160709004352.GK28589@dtor-ws> <1468058721.2557.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <57824E91.2030902@roeck-us.net> Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 06:33:05 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 07/10/2016 03:20 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2016, Takashi Iwai wrote: > >> IMO, we need a really better QA before releasing stable trees. They are >> all fixes, yes, but they aren't always fixes for stable trees, in >> reality. > > I agree. > > BTW, how much coverage does -stable get from Fengguang's 0day robot? I > think that as most of the stable tress don't really use the git workflow, > the trees are being pushed out to git.kernel.org only shortly before > actual release, so the 0day bot doesn't have enough time to catch up; but > I have to admit I don't really know how exactly the timing and flow of > patches works here. > Greg tends to update his trees on a quite regular basis, as he applies patches. I don't really know for sure about the others, but overall my impression is that there tends to be a flurry of patches applied in the day before a stable release candidate is announced. Guenter