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 261A5982 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 03:32:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com (mail-la0-f47.google.com [209.85.215.47]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61451A7 for ; Mon, 13 Jul 2015 03:32:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by lahh5 with SMTP id h5so8957458lah.2 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:32:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20150713105210.6e367f4b@noble> References: <55A1407E.5080800@oracle.com> <55A26C5B.8060007@oracle.com> <20150713105210.6e367f4b@noble> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:32:23 -0700 Message-ID: To: NeilBrown Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Sasha Levin , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Issues with stable process List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 5:52 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > > I've been bitten by this a couple of times too. At least two fairly > serious md bugs *never* got into a release from Linus, but did get into > -stable and at least one into a vendor kernel. > I've had -stable regression issues, too (both regressions I caused and regressions I've been bitten by). > > I would rather that the default was that patches don't go into -stable > until they have > - been in a full release from Linus and > - been in a Linus's tree for at least 2 weeks. > (or 1 week times the age of the target in releases. > So a fix in 4.4 get to 4.3-stable after a week, 4.2-stable > after 2 weeks etc .... maybe I'm going over-board here). > > Many fixes are important but simply aren't that urgent so the two or > more weeks is no great cost. I tend to agree. It makes me quite nervous when brand-new non-critical fixes get backported before they've had a nice soak in some -rc releases. --Andy