From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Sergio Correia <lists@uece.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
linux-wireless Mailing List <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
Sujith Manoharan <c_manoha@qca.qualcomm.com>,
"ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" <ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net>,
"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Subject: Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:47:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120414104733.GA4871@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s06jrPBzf5Lt86-GDxD_PxqcaeJgmYS4tJhcvDdf=J5zA@mail.gmail.com>
* Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Felipe Contreras
> > <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure, but removing that patch from the stable tree is not
> >> going the change that information; we already know the
> >> patch is wrong.
> >
> > .. and we wait until it has been fixed in mainline so that
> > we *know* that information doesn't get lost.
>
> So why don't we pick potentially dangerous patches that might
> benefit from some testing, put them in 'stable', and if there
> are problems, make sure they get fixed in upstream first?
>
> Or for that matter totally broken patches we want to make sure
> they get fixed in upstream.
>
> Because the priority of the 'stable' tree is *stability*. Is
> it not?
>
> But what you are saying is: *before* the final review, even a
> hint that the patch might cause problems is reason enough to
> drop it from stable, but *after* the review, if we know the
> patch is totally broken, then it's the opposite; we really
> want it in.
What you don't seem to understand is that there are good reasons
why we first fix bugs upstream, then in -stable. Greg explained
it to you, Linus explained it to you and so did many others.
Having an order of patches *necessarily* means that the
development tree will get fixes sooner than the stable tree. In
other words, this *necessarily* means that the stable tree - and
its users - will have to wait a little bit more to have the fix.
In the worst-case this 'have to wait a little bit longer' might
span the time between two minor stable kernel releases.
You seem to equate this 'have to wait a little bit longer to get
the fix' property of the maintenance model with 'we don't care
about stable tree users' - that claim is obviously idiotic and
most of your arguments in this thread are idiotic as well.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-14 10:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 87+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20120411231102.GA6404@kroah.com>
2012-04-11 23:59 ` [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review Sergio Correia
2012-04-12 0:29 ` Greg KH
2012-04-12 0:57 ` Sergio Correia
2012-04-12 1:03 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-12 1:13 ` Greg KH
2012-04-12 13:32 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-12 14:46 ` Greg KH
2012-04-12 16:49 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-12 17:24 ` Adrian Chadd
2012-04-12 18:43 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-12 18:56 ` Jonathan Nieder
2012-04-12 21:34 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-12 21:43 ` Willy Tarreau
2012-04-12 20:07 ` Greg KH
2012-04-12 20:52 ` Sven-Haegar Koch
2012-04-13 8:57 ` Stefan Richter
2012-04-13 10:29 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-13 13:42 ` Stefan Richter
2012-04-13 14:01 ` Stefan Richter
2012-04-13 22:38 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-13 23:05 ` Jonathan Nieder
2012-04-13 23:18 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-14 5:44 ` Willy Tarreau
2012-04-14 15:43 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-14 16:02 ` Willy Tarreau
2012-04-14 9:10 ` Stefan Richter
2012-04-14 15:52 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-14 18:08 ` Stefan Richter
2012-04-14 7:41 ` Stefan Richter
2012-04-14 15:29 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-14 15:57 ` Willy Tarreau
2012-04-14 19:33 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-14 19:58 ` Willy Tarreau
2012-04-14 17:55 ` Stefan Richter
2012-04-14 19:21 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-14 21:21 ` Stefan Richter
2012-04-14 22:09 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-14 22:47 ` Stefan Richter
2012-04-14 22:56 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-14 23:06 ` Adrian Chadd
2012-04-13 19:08 ` [ath9k-devel] " Peter Stuge
2012-04-13 22:53 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-14 6:01 ` Willy Tarreau
2012-04-16 16:27 ` Greg KH
2012-04-16 20:11 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-16 20:58 ` Greg KH
2012-04-16 21:18 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-16 21:27 ` Greg KH
2012-04-16 21:44 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-16 22:34 ` Peter Stuge
2012-04-17 5:24 ` Willy Tarreau
2012-04-16 21:50 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-16 21:54 ` Don deJuan
2012-04-16 22:02 ` Don deJuan
2012-04-16 21:39 ` Don deJuan
2012-04-12 18:40 ` Willy Tarreau
2012-04-12 19:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-12 21:20 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-12 21:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-12 21:44 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-12 22:02 ` [ath9k-devel] " Luis R. Rodriguez
2012-04-12 22:04 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-12 22:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-12 22:29 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-14 10:47 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2012-04-14 15:59 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-15 6:51 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-04-15 17:15 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-15 17:29 ` Willy Tarreau
2012-04-15 17:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2012-04-15 22:12 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-16 5:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-04-16 20:25 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-16 21:08 ` Arend van Spriel
2012-04-16 5:39 ` Willy Tarreau
2012-04-16 6:38 ` Ingo Molnar
2012-04-12 22:12 ` David Miller
2012-04-12 22:58 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-13 5:34 ` Willy Tarreau
2012-04-13 10:04 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-04-12 21:39 ` Willy Tarreau
2012-04-12 22:02 ` Jesper Juhl
2012-04-12 19:57 ` Alexander Holler
2012-04-12 20:06 ` Greg KH
2012-04-12 20:30 ` Alexander Holler
2012-04-12 22:31 ` Greg KH
2012-04-12 4:16 ` Heinz Diehl
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120414104733.GA4871@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net \
--cc=c_manoha@qca.qualcomm.com \
--cc=felipe.contreras@gmail.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linville@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=lists@uece.net \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).