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 2ADF07AA for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:21:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8E26115 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:21:15 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" In-Reply-To: <1600610.QIejSIJ3WK@vostro.rjw.lan> Message-ID: References: <87oa5aqjmq.fsf@intel.com> <20160803110935.GA26270@kroah.com> <1600610.QIejSIJ3WK@vostro.rjw.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Now, I understand why there are regressions in -stable and to me it would > be just fine to say that they will be there occasionally, so as to prevent > supporting the "no regressions in -stable at all" expectation that (a) is > unrealistic today and (b) seems to be quite widespread. > > Or do we really want to meet that expectation? My primary goal when I was starting this thread (and I certainly didn't expect it to become such a gigantic monster :) ) was to try to figure out how to do better on this front. Of course, perfect is the enemy of good, but *trying* to find ways how to improve the regression rate seems like a reasoneble thing to attempt at least. That's where some of my proposals in this thread some time ago were coming from. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs