[Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Issues with stable process

[NeilBrown]

On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 15:30:37 -0400 Sasha Levin <sasha.levin at oracle.com>
wrote:

> On 07/14/2015 12:02 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Jul 2015 11:53:24 -0400
> > Sasha Levin <sasha.levin at oracle.com> wrote:
> > 
> >  
> >> > The point I'm trying to make is that a bad patch in Linus' tree has a wider
> >> > ripple effect than what it were in the past, while Linus might consider a bad
> >> > patch in one of the -rc releases something minor since "no one should be using
> >> > it for production" it really isn't the case any more, those patches can and
> >> > will end up with the folks who don't want to have them.
> > I have to ask, why?
> > 
> > Just because a stable tag is on a patch it automatically gets pulled
> > into stable? What about waiting a while before pulling in those
> > patches? Wait till -rc2 is out before pulling in any patches marked for
> > stable in -rc1. Then wait for -rc3 to pull in the patches that were
> > added in -rc2. But don't pull in any patches that has a "Fixes" to it
> > in the next -rc release.
> > 
> > That is, when -rc2 is released, only pull in the patches marked for
> > stable in -rc1 if there were no Fixes tags for them in -rc2. And so on.
> > 
> > Again, just placing stuff in -next isn't going to solve this. It may
> > help, but you will still have fixes that breaks things when they get
> > into Linus's tree no matter how long they were in -next. This is simply
> > because Linus's tree has a wider audience. But hopefully, the next
> > release candidate will have the fixes for anything that breaks in the
> > previous release candidate.
> 
> I agree that this would be enough for -stable.
> 
> But wouldn't you agree that the policy of not passing patches in -rc cycles
> through -next at all is incorrect?
> 
> I'm fine with not having a minimal time it must live in -next, but I really
> think that it should be in -next at some point.

What exactly is the value of sitting in -next for a while.
-next was originally to catch integration issues, and a "simple" bug
fix shouldn't have those.

0-day runs of -next, but then it runs on lots of other trees too.  So
if you want 0-day coverage (which I do), then the rule doesn't have to
"in -next" but only "in a 0-day tree".

So what, specifically, is the value that a bug-fix patch gets from
-next that it cannot get elsewhere?

Thanks,
NeilBrown


> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Sasha
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-discuss at lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss