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 E724525A for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 07:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F12D115 for ; Sun, 10 Jul 2016 07:30:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 09:29:59 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: James Bottomley In-Reply-To: <1468058721.2557.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> 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 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: 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 Sat, 09 Jul 2016 12:05:21 +0200, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-07-08 at 17:43 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 02:37:40AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > I tend to think that all known bugs should be fixed, at least > > > because once they have been fixed, no one needs to remember about > > > them any more. :-) > > > > > > Moreover, minor fixes don't really introduce regressions that often > > > > Famous last words :) > > Actually, beyond the humour, the idea that small fixes don't introduce > regressions must be our most annoying anti-pattern. The reality is > that a lot of so called fixes do introduce bugs. The way this happens > is that a lot of these "obvious" fixes go through without any deep > review (because they're obvious, right?) and the bugs noisily turn up > slightly later. And there have been quite a few cases where the fix introduces a bug only in the older kernels while the fix itself is correct for the latest kernel. And, catching it only by a patch review is difficult. Partly because the patch shows only a small context around the changes (thus it looks apparently OK), and partly because the stable trees are old and the maintainer's brain storage has too short refresh time, thus often he forgets about the relevant change in the past. 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. thanks, Takashi