From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [GIT PATCH] scsi bug fixes for 2.6.23-rc2 Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:56:54 -0400 Message-ID: <46B88836.5020604@garzik.org> References: <1186248703.3439.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1186458941.6637.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070807001429.f8cb3b22.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1186496712.3414.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20070807155521.0dc9f068@the-village.bc.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:39352 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934780AbXHGO45 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Aug 2007 10:56:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070807155521.0dc9f068@the-village.bc.nu> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: James Bottomley , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-scsi , linux-kernel Alan Cox wrote: >> I fully agree, and firmly believe that the current stabilisation works >> incredibly well for shaking out bugs. My problem is that it doesn't >> work for stabilising features. Either we have to get far more people >> doing feature integration testing before the merge window, or we have to >> accept feature updates after the merge window (for existing features >> that are having stability issues). > > The other alternative is that if Linus won't take updates you ask him to > revert bsg so that you don't get a half baked merge as a result of this. > I'm not sure that is a good path to follow either however. Like everything else in life, it's a balance. If something is clearly half-baked and requires a bunch of post-rc1 changes just to be usable, a revert might make a lot of sense. It's questions of: how much further change is required, how invasive are those changes, how half-baked and incomplete is the feature really, what is the downside of a revert, ... Jeff