Re: KS Topic request: Handling the Stable kernel, let's dump the cc: stable tag

Greg KH
2013-07-16T06:20:58Z

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:17:32AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Before the "3.10.1-stable review" thread degenerated into a disagreement
> > > about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
> > > which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
> > >
> > > The problem, as Ji???? Kosina put is succinctly is that the distributions
> > > are finding stable less useful because it contains to much stuff they'd
> > > classify as not stable material.

And I'm going to be working on that.

But I need, from the distros, specific examples of what they object to.
So far all I've gotten is one security patch (that was needed), and one
patch for sysfs that I backported too far in the version numbers (my
fault.)

Given the huge number of stable patches over the past few years, only
having 2 patches be an issue sounds like things are working well for
people here.

If I don't get pushback, with specifics, from the distros, I will not
know what to change, so if people can provide me that, it will help out
a lot.

> > I don't like this at all, just for the simple reason that it will push
> > the majority of the work of stable kernel development on to the
> > subsystem maintainers, who have enough work to do as it is.
>
> Well, I think of this as a feature not a bug because it enables scaling,
> but we can certainly debate the topic; it's probably one of the more
> important things that should be discussed.

How does this scale? It makes the maintainers do more work, which does
not scale at all.

> > Stable tree stuff should cause almost _no_ extra burden on the kernel
> > developers, because it is something that I, and a few other people, have
> > agreed to do with our time. It has taken me 8 _years_ to finally get
> > maintainers to agree to mark stuff for the stable tree, and fine-tune a
> > development process that makes it easy for us to do this backport work.
> >
> > I _want_ the exact same commit that is in Linus's tree for the backport
> > because if I have to rely on a maintainer to do the backport and resend
> > it, I _know_ it will usually be a changed patch, and the git commit id
> > will be lost.
>
> This is fixable with process and tools, surely.

That's crazy, and it implies that there is a problem today with the Cc:
tag.

Is there? What is the problem that you are seeing that you wish to help
resolve?

I don't think it's the same problem that I am seeing, as adding more
tools and processes sure isn't going to fix that.

> > Have I missed anything else that the distros are objecting to? The
> > "smaller" distros (i.e. ones without lots of kernel developers) have
> > been giving me nothing but _thanks_ and appreciation with the way that
> > I've been sucking in all of the different fixes. Do we want to mess
> > with a process that is really working out well for them, and only causes
> > annoyance at times by the larger ones?
>
> I still think the scaling problem remains plus, if you push back more,
> it's going to increase friction: you aren't necessarily in the best
> position to know what should be a stable fix for a given subsystem, and
> if you push back incorrectly it's going to annoy the maintainer.

Making a subsystem maintainer answer "why is this needed" is really
going to annoy people? Seriously?

Let's try it out, and see what happens.

I think the real stable issue that _everyone_ keeps ignoring, is my
original complaint, in that people are using the -rc1 merge window to
get fixes in they should have sent to Linus for .0.

I don't see anything you have written so far that will help resolve that
issue, which is not good, as that needs to be taken care of.

greg k-h