Re: [02/07] [SCSI] qla2xxx: Pull-down scsi-host-addition to follow board initialization.

[Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>]

Hi Andrew,

> If the person who originally raised that patch put unrelated things
> into a single patch then that's where the problem started.

Agreed.

> Bear in mind that there is also risk in only part-applying a patch.

If applying only a part of a given patch doesn't sound safe, then I
would question the supposed obvious correctness of this patch in the
first place.

Some times ago, Alan stated he liked -stable because "its small enough
that most of the add on patches people use aren't breaking against it"
[1]. I found this a sound statement, but if we now accept non-minimum
changes, this won't be true any longer (or at least this will tend to
become less true).

> > This aint -stable material.
> 
> But it's obviously safe.  Let's use our brains on these patches and
> not become beholden to doctrine, OK?

Why did we write down and discuss rules for -stable in the first place
then [2]? Of the 9 rules Greg first listed as conditions for a patch to
be accepted in -stable, this patch breaks 4 (it is bigger than 100
lines, if fixes more than one thing, including one that doesn't bother
people as far as I can see, and it has trivial fixes in it.) So I don't
think I am actually splitting hair as you seemed to suggest. I know some
of these rules were slightly reworded afterwards, but still.

I reviewed the latest stable series of patches with these rules in mind,
trying to help. If the rules have since changed - and it seems they did,
then instead of helping, I have been wasting your time, and mine. Where
were the new rules discussed? We better have a web page summarizing the
current rules for -stable if we want submitters and reviewers to do the
right thing.

Thanks.

[1] http://kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20050612_315.html#5
[2] http://kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20050403_303.html#9

-- 
Jean Delvare