From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751331AbWG1X4n (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:56:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751370AbWG1X4n (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:56:43 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:43437 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751331AbWG1X4n (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:56:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:55:34 -0400 From: Dave Jones To: Greg KH Cc: Nathan Scott , stable@kernel.org, Justin Piszcz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [stable] 2.6.17.[1-6] XFS Filesystem Corruption, Where is 2.6.17.7? Message-ID: <20060728235534.GE3217@redhat.com> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , Greg KH , Nathan Scott , stable@kernel.org, Justin Piszcz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060725084624.C2090627@wobbly.melbourne.sgi.com> <20060725210716.GC4807@merlin.emma.line.org> <20060725210919.GD4807@merlin.emma.line.org> <20060728232654.GB2140@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060728232654.GB2140@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 04:26:54PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > OK, 2.6.17.7 is out, but still - is this suggestion worthwhile > > considering for future -stable release engineering or just crap? > > .7 took a bit longer than expected, due to some security bugs that > needed to be added to the queue, combined with the fact that both Chris > and I were busy with OLS stuff. Normally we both aren't travelling at > the same time, but right then, we were, so we couldn't respond as > quickly as it seems some people felt we should have. > > Sorry about this, we'll try to do better next time. The flipside to this is that those patches had been posted for around a week before you released .7, and *no-one* caught this problem until after the release. The burden of testing shouldn't solely be on the -stable team. Perhaps a -pre release at the time of review would be a good idea. Just a roll-up of the proposed patches, to save testers having to save and apply 30 patches seperately ? Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk