Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable issues

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On 05/05/2014 08:20 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2014 15:33:24 -0700
> Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> wrote:
>
>
>> And as for announcing it ahead of time, I'm never going to do that
>> again, the aftermath was horrid of people putting stuff that shouldn't
>> be there.  Heck, when people know about what the enterprise kernels are
>> going to be, they throw stuff into upstream "early", so it's a
>> well-known pattern and issue.
>
> Perhaps you can announce that 3.X "might" be the LTS tree. And just as
> 3.X merge window opens, announce that 3.(X-1) is the new LTS tree. It
> would be too late to have people pushing "unfinished" code into the LTS.
>

After the first time this happens people would know or assume that
it is going to be 3.(X-1), and push the unfinished stuff into that
release. Then 3.(X-1) would be in such a bad shape that using it as
stable release would be a bad idea. And if 3.(X-1) doesn't make it,
you would have even more people push unfinished crap into 3.X.
Ultimately you would end up with two bad releases instead of one.

In other words, I don't think this kind of reverse psychology would work.

Guenter