From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 09:21:20 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: Jiri Kosina In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.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 00:35:09 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > In addition to that, I'd again (like during the past 5+ years, but it > never really happened) like to propose a stable tree discussion topic: I'd > like to see an attempt to make the stable workflow more oriented towards > "maintainers sending pull requests" rather than "random people pointing to > patches that should go to stable". This has been much of an issue in the > past, when we've been seeing many stable tree regressions; that's not the > case any more, but still something where I sense a room for improvement. I guess the stable workflow couldn't be unified since the "pull" model needs more load to maintainers. So the discussion should go rather about the pattern, what model would fit for which kind of person. One big obstacle to swith to the pull model for me is the large number of stable branches. Should we focus on only Greg's branches? And, how much QA test is required (or supposed) for *each* branch? Also, it's not clear what about subtree maintainership. Is stable patches in net tree all managed currently only by Dave? Or each subtree maintainer manages the stable patches and push up to the top maintainer? So, more questions than suggestions from my side: it already implies that the topic is definitely interesting to me. thanks, Takashi