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 0F3E7413 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:32:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AB841CA for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 15:32:51 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2016 17:32:48 +0200 Message-ID: From: Takashi Iwai To: Steven Rostedt In-Reply-To: <20160804093355.30096bbe@gandalf.local.home> References: <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> <1470233095.2482.46.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160803212332.576bb718@grimm.local.home> <20160804082018.GA27204@kroah.com> <20160804093355.30096bbe@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") 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 Thu, 04 Aug 2016 15:33:55 +0200, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:20:18 +0200 > Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 09:23:32PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 10:04:55 -0400 > > > James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > > > > > > OK, so how about you only apply stable patches with a cc stable and a > > > > fixes tag? > > > > > > While reading this thread, I thought about replying and suggesting > > > exactly this. But you did it before I could. > > > > > > I try to make it a habit to find the commit that a fix is for, and add > > > that as a Fixes tag and even add a # v+ to the Cc tag. > > > > > > Maybe we ask that all cc stable commits have this, otherwise it should > > > only be applied to the previous stable and nothing earlier. > > > > No, again, that would put more burden on the maintainer and developer > > than I want to "enforce". I don't even want to do that extra work for > > the trees I maintain, I just couldn't scale that way. > > Note, this isn't just good practice for sending patches to stable, it's > general good practice maintaining code. It gives a nice history of a > change. If you look at the change log of code that one might see that > looks "interesting" it may be very educational to see that it was done > as a fix for something else. And a new developer may understand why > code was added in the first place. > > I don't buy this as burden on a maintainer. This should be part of the > maintenance procedure, regardless of sending to stable or not. Yes it > does take extra time, but I don't think that time is wasted. Agreed that it's a good practice. But what if a fix isn't a regression fix? Many stable patches are trivial ones like PCI ID additions. We may point any of the commit to the corresponding code, but does it make sense at all? thanks, Takashi