From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from vena.lwn.net ([206.168.112.25]:42663 "EHLO vena.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750858AbZFWTXR (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:23:17 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:23:16 -0600 From: Jake Edge To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Krzysztof Halasa , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Pavel Machek , Greg KH , "corbet@lwn.net" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , "tshibata@ab.jp.nec.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3.1415] Documentation: add documentation summary for rc-series and merge window Message-ID: <20090623132316.28a4a348@chukar> In-Reply-To: References: <20090622222217.GH23972@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090623130602.6cd6b713@chukar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote: > In fact, this whole discussion has shown one thing: people still > think that "bug fix" somehow automatically means that it's > appropriate after the merge window. That's simply not so. Makes sense. It certainly is counter-intuitive sometimes, though. Just to clarify, there would seem to be one other category of bugs that is reasonable post-merge-window: those introduced by new features (or bug fixes) that were added during the merge window (i.e. something found in testing the new code during the -rc cycle). Those don't necessarily have to be security/oops problems and, for the most part, can't be regressions (at least for new features). Or should those wait, by and large, for the next merge window? jake -- Jake Edge - LWN - jake@lwn.net - http://lwn.net From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jake Edge Subject: Re: [PATCH v3.1415] Documentation: add documentation summary for rc-series and merge window Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:23:16 -0600 Message-ID: <20090623132316.28a4a348@chukar> References: <20090622222217.GH23972@bombadil.infradead.org> <20090623130602.6cd6b713@chukar> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Krzysztof Halasa , "Luis R. Rodriguez" , Pavel Machek , Greg KH , "corbet-T1hC0tSOHrs@public.gmane.org" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org" , "alan-qBU/x9rampVanCEyBjwyrvXRex20P6io@public.gmane.org" , "linux-wireless-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , "tshibata-zZGIbrA41Td8UrSeD/g0lQ@public.gmane.org" To: Linus Torvalds Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-wireless-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote: > In fact, this whole discussion has shown one thing: people still > think that "bug fix" somehow automatically means that it's > appropriate after the merge window. That's simply not so. Makes sense. It certainly is counter-intuitive sometimes, though. Just to clarify, there would seem to be one other category of bugs that is reasonable post-merge-window: those introduced by new features (or bug fixes) that were added during the merge window (i.e. something found in testing the new code during the -rc cycle). Those don't necessarily have to be security/oops problems and, for the most part, can't be regressions (at least for new features). Or should those wait, by and large, for the next merge window? jake -- Jake Edge - LWN - jake-T1hC0tSOHrs@public.gmane.org - http://lwn.net -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html