From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2292DC282C4 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:00:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6CA6217D9 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:00:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1549990821; bh=lBpKb/wbbXQeVoDwcKIY1DcbF2frsZ0l73LEA0sVM7M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:From; b=N33cKQOWAWMIvjcaEWR4zQXEOCp6IF2mBq49dk9sreSvfpQ+OX/lA+urxVjpaNlPF Cw+kJTpbJtPo7CubAIX8twr/IKT/4vI4V2xCdK3eeKMonWzNFcEqSwfTgb4UAf/pVi /utwkuU2wAo09JWQfoD4xi9z71tB766MrrXG7pAk= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729146AbfBLRAP (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:00:15 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:47870 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728927AbfBLRAO (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:00:14 -0500 Received: from localhost (c-73-47-72-35.hsd1.nh.comcast.net [73.47.72.35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E82F3206A3; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 17:00:13 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1549990814; bh=lBpKb/wbbXQeVoDwcKIY1DcbF2frsZ0l73LEA0sVM7M=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:From; b=kayr7AB1SjalDDD5c/bKDcSDgEAkbNv0RHCVudc+pGFp49+yJ7LF+GqkGZ8MuDPqB Eodtt30H80uBcRT7CzXsQHVyW1muygiKft0PTj36ZxPGkoj3YI9fln6WfoYC/Wb2Xq oE6XWCnus4JGxAmHpySrpuqHNM+9kPyzPC6ivJUw= Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:00:12 -0500 From: Sasha Levin To: lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [LSF/MM TOPIC] FS, MM, and stable trees Message-ID: <20190212170012.GF69686@sasha-vm> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Hi all, I'd like to propose a discussion about the workflow of the stable trees when it comes to fs/ and mm/. In the past year we had some friction with regards to the policies and the procedures around picking patches for stable tree, and I feel it would be very useful to establish better flow with the folks who might be attending LSF/MM. I feel that fs/ and mm/ are in very different places with regards to which patches go in -stable, what tests are expected, and the timeline of patches from the point they are proposed on a mailing list to the point they are released in a stable tree. Therefore, I'd like to propose two different sessions on this (one for fs/ and one for mm/), as a common session might be less conductive to agreeing on a path forward as the starting point for both subsystems are somewhat different. We can go through the existing processes, automation, and testing mechanisms we employ when building stable trees, and see how we can improve these to address the concerns of fs/ and mm/ folks. -- Thanks, Sasha