Re: AUTOSEL process

Sasha Levin
2023-03-11T14:06:14Z

On Sat, Mar 11, 2023 at 06:25:59AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 09:45:24PM +0000, Eric Biggers wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 10:18:35PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> > I believe that -stable would be more useful without AUTOSEL process.
>>
>> There has to be a way to ensure that security fixes that weren't properly tagged
>> make it to stable anyway. So, AUTOSEL is necessary, at least in some form. I
>> think that debating *whether it should exist* is a distraction from what's
>> actually important, which is that the current AUTOSEL process has some specific
>> problems, and these specific problems need to be fixed...
>
>I agree with you, that we need autosel and we also need autosel to
>be better. I actually see Pavel's mail as a datapoint (or "anecdote",
>if you will) in support of that; the autosel process currently works
>so badly that a long-time contributor thinks it's worse than nothing.
>
>Sasha, what do you need to help you make this better?

What could I do to avoid this?

I suppose that if I had a way to know if a certain a commit is part of a
series, I could either take all of it or none of it, but I don't think I
have a way of doing that by looking at a commit in Linus' tree
(suggestions welcome, I'm happy to implement them).

Other than that, the commit at hand:

1. Describes a real problem that needs to be fixed, so while it was
reverted for a quick fix, we'll need to go back and bring it in along
with it's dependency.

2. Soaked for over two weeks between the AUTOSEL mails and the release,
gone through multiple rounds of reviews.

3. Went through all the tests provided by all the individuals, bots,
companies, etc who test the tree through multiple rounds of testing (we
had to do a -rc2 for that releases).

4. Went through whatever tests distros run on the kernel before they
package and release it.

--
Thanks,
Sasha