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 074389F2 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:14:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f193.google.com (mail-ob0-f193.google.com [209.85.214.193]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC2F5AA for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by obbgp5 with SMTP id gp5so49943obb.2 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 2015 00:14:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: geert.uytterhoeven@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20150713202818.23310729@lwn.net> References: <55A1407E.5080800@oracle.com> <55A26C5B.8060007@oracle.com> <20150713105210.6e367f4b@noble> <55A33E48.2040202@oracle.com> <20150713142132.08fead4d@gandalf.local.home> <55A45AD8.5010400@oracle.com> <20150713210226.519dedfd@gandalf.local.home> <20150713202818.23310729@lwn.net> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:14:06 +0200 Message-ID: From: Geert Uytterhoeven To: Jonathan Corbet 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 Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:02:26 -0400 > Steven Rostedt wrote: > >> Yes, it's great if we can catch things in -next. But I don't believe >> that patches that fix bugs found in Linus's tree should sit in next >> before going into Linus's tree, because those patches are basically >> fixing stuff that was already in next and wasn't discovered until it >> hit Linus's tree. Which is why I say it's a waste of time to put it in >> next before sending straight to Linus. It's about not introducing regressions to fix other regressions (and not getting flamed by Linus)... > That, of course, assumes that these fixes don't introduce *other* bugs > that might just be caught in -next... > > In general, though, I think a lot of people see -next as -rc1 without the > quality control; it's volatile and scary. So it's not surprising that it > doesn't get a lot of real-world testing. And, as long as that's the case, > there's going to be a lot of bugs that are never caught in -next. In the old (pre-git/bk?) days, -rc1 was volatile and scary, and "release candidate" was really a misnomer. You didn't dare to trust any system you cared a bit about with an -rc before -rc3 or -rc4. These days that role is played by -next, and -rc1 is usually fairly usable. But it seems we can't get rid of the "early -rc is to be avoided" stamp. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds