Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Issues with stable process

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 07/14/2015 11:56 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>> If the issue being fixed is serious enough to take out substantial
>>>> > > portion of our test coverage or affect a lot of other development
>>>> > > usage then that's really disruptive to other work, it impacts things
>>>> > > like bisection for example.  A strong rule does nobody any good,
>>>> > > it's overkill for the problem.
>>> > If there's an issue that causes that effect then the original commit that
>>> > caused it should be reverted rather than introducing an untested fix right
>>> > away.
>>> > Obviously not a hard rule, but it should be the case in general.
>> That's still sending a change of course which was what was being
>> objected to.
>
> Lesser of two evils? I can't really come up with a safer solution rather than
> reverting it (not blindly, the revert will need an ack too, and that's assuming
> that the fix is not trivial).

And that it can be reverted, i.e. there are no later commits that depend on it.

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