From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 22:57:46 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: "Theodore Ts'o" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] When to push bug fixes to mainline Message-ID: <20130712025745.GA24086@tuxdriver.com> References: <20130711214830.611455274@linuxfoundation.org> <20130712005023.GB31005@thunk.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130712005023.GB31005@thunk.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:50:23PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > In any case, I've been very conservative in _not_ pushing bug fixes to > Linus after -rc3 (unless they are fixing a regression or the bug fix > is super-serious); I'd much rather have them cook in the ext4 tree > where they can get a lot more testing (a full regression test run for > ext4 takes over 24 hours), and for people trying out linux-next. > > Maybe the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of holding back > changes and trying to avoid the risk of introducing regressions; > perhaps this would be a good topic to discuss at the Kernel Summit. Yes, there does seem to be a certain ebb and flow as to how strict the rules are about what should go into stable, what fixes are "good enough" for a given -rc, how tight those rule are in -rc2 vs in -rc6, etc. If nothing else, a good repetitive flogging and a restatement of the One True Way to handle these things might be worthwhile once again... John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.