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 2DA277AA for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:59:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9232214D for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 13:59:55 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:59:53 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: James Bottomley In-Reply-To: <1470232658.2482.42.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Message-ID: References: <871t27s1i8.fsf@intel.com> <20160802153400.GD10376@sirena.org.uk> <3268954.rXb0BJAX6c@vostro.rjw.lan> <87oa5aqjmq.fsf@intel.com> <20160803110935.GA26270@kroah.com> <87a8guq9y8.fsf@intel.com> <20160803132607.GA31662@kroah.com> <1470232658.2482.42.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: 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, James Bottomley wrote: > This isn't a viable approach. Firstly stable review is less thorough > than upstream review because the review mostly goes "yes, I already > reviewed this in upstream". Which is exactly the problem I am trying to bring more attention to. > Secondly, if the upstream review didn't catch the problems why would we > suddenly catch them in a stable review? The patch was pretty fine for upstream, as it fixed a real bug there. But the buggy code wasn't present in -stable. > The fact that possibly no-one reviewed the upstream patch indicates the > need for a better upstream process Again, that's not really the issue here. The patch was perfectly valid upstream. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs