From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Kalle Valo To: "John W. Linville" Cc: James Bottomley , Greg KH , ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] KS Topic request: Handling the Stable kernel, let's dump the cc: stable tag References: <1373916476.2748.69.camel@dabdike> <20130715214422.GA2478@kroah.com> <1373951852.2148.9.camel@dabdike> <20130716062058.GB19052@kroah.com> <1373960616.2148.34.camel@dabdike> <20130717150857.GA2291@tuxdriver.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2013 10:45:47 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20130717150857.GA2291@tuxdriver.com> (John W. Linville's message of "Wed, 17 Jul 2013 11:08:58 -0400") Message-ID: <87k3koxqdw.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: "John W. Linville" writes: > Is having a flood of fixes in x.y.1 any worse than having to got to an > -rc8 or an -rc9? I think it's better to send less fixes to -rc8 or -rc9 and focus more on testing. That way there should be less regressions in later stages of -rc releases and especially in the final x.y.0 release. Most of the time I don't even consider updating to the stable releases, I just wait for the next .0 release from Linus. For this kind of workflow there is a clear advantage of slowing down patch flow before the release, better chances of not needing to update the kernel that often. -- Kalle Valo