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 6F6BF308 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 10:20:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC75FCF for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 10:20:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 12:20:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Takashi Iwai In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 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. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs