Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] [0/4] Common scenario for four proposals regarding regressions

Sasha Levin
2024-06-20T23:25:12Z

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 12:02:21PM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
>Right, but the point I'm making is that even that wider pool doesn't
>have the app use or hardware breadth of the pool who try out stable. I
>also agree the stable users would rather not be testers but given that
>they are, it's not impossible we could sell them on the idea of testing
>out .0 to find bugs they would otherwise be finding in .n.
>
>After all, given that stable is now delaying backports in the merge
>window, there should be at least a 2 week period where .0 is it
>(although it's also the two week period where we're not paying
>attention ...)

We also keep the prior kernel alive for a few weeks *after* a merge
window.

We understand that X.Y.Z for Z<~5 kernels receive many changes and need
additional testing, and so users have the option of staying on the Y-1
kernel for a few weeks until issues with X.Y are settled.

So yes, users should have "at least two", but really "at least five"
weeks to find out issues in a post-merge-window release.

--
Thanks,
Sasha