Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] [3/4] Elevate handling of regressions that made it to releases deemed for end users

[Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>]

On 21.06.24 08:47, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2024, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> I'll be repeating myself, but I personally really don't like any such 
> strong timelines in kernel documentation.

FWIW, I really tried hard to avoid *strong* wording, which is why the
sections about timing use words like "aim for".

> Everybody 
> of course tries to get the regressions fixed as soon as possible once it's 
> identified.

We have a different perspective here, as I often see what the scenario
at the start of the thread describes: a fix is developed soon (so up to
that point we agree), but then take relative long to reach mainline (and
thus affected stable series that contain the culprit, too).

> Sometimes it takes longer, because it's complex.

Sure, that's not a problem I care about here at all -- unless a revert
could fix the regression quickly instead, especially if the culprit made
it to a stable tree somehow.

> Sometimes people are on 
> holidays. Sometimes it just falls in between cracks, and people need 
> to be pinged to look into that.

This will always happen and that does not really bother me.

> Kernel documentation wording is not going to stop any of that.

Definitely not, and that's not the goal I'm trying to reach here.

Dcumentation is meant to outline roughly what's expected to bring
everyone on the same page, as right now we have different
interpretations of posts from Linus people might or might not have seen
coupled with a combination of unwritten rules, and written documentation
containing conflicting and partly outdated information.

Ciao, Thorsten