From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <1374003789.6458.55.camel@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] When to push bug fixes to mainline From: Steven Rostedt To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Linus Torvalds , "Luck, Tony" , David Lang , "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , Willy Tarreau Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:43:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130716191147.GA1680@kroah.com> References: <20130711214830.611455274@linuxfoundation.org> <20130712005023.GB31005@thunk.org> <20130712051451.GC25815@1wt.eu> <20130716165933.GU22506@sirena.org.uk> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F31C845B1@ORSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com> <1374000084.6458.36.camel@gandalf.local.home> <20130716191147.GA1680@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 12:11 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > People mark stable patches that way already today with a: > Cc: stable # delay for 3.12-rc4 > or some such wording. I take those and don't apply them until the noted > release happens, so you can do this if needed. I guess the thing is, are stable patches prone to regressions. Do we just do that for patches that we think are too complex and may cause some harm. Of course, there's the question about having a clue about what patches might cause harm or not. For tracing patches, I test them probably more than most people, as tracing isn't usually done on non development machines. A regression in tracing isn't likely to harm others. Right now it doesn't seem to be an issue because we have "Greg" doing things at light speed. But when stable is maintained by a lesser deity, then we may need to look at changing the process. -- Steve