Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756657Ab3GLD0T (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:26:19 -0400 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.64]:60099 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756475Ab3GLD0R (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:26:17 -0400 Message-ID: <51DF773F.8010506@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 11:25:51 +0800 From: Li Zefan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Theodore Ts'o" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , , , , , Subject: Re: When to push bug fixes to mainline References: <20130711214830.611455274@linuxfoundation.org> <20130712005023.GB31005@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: <20130712005023.GB31005@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.135.68.215] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2891 Lines: 57 On 2013/7/12 8:50, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:01:17PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >> I'm sitting on top of over 170 more patches that have been marked for >> the stable releases right now that are not included in this set of >> releases. The fact that there are this many patches for stable stuff >> that are waiting to be merged through the main -rc1 merge window cycle >> is worrying to me. >> >> Why are subsystem maintainers holding on to fixes that are >> _supposedly_ affecting all users? I mean, 21 powerpc core changes >> that I don't see until a -rc1 merge? It's as if developers don't >> expect people to use a .0 release and are relying on me to get the >> fixes they have burried in their trees out to users. That's not that >> nice. 6 "core" iscsi-target fixes? That's the sign of either a >> broken subsystem maintainer, or a lack of understanding what the >> normal -rc kernel releases are supposed to be for. > > At least at one point in the past, the rule that Linus had laid down > after discussing things at Kernel Summits was after -rc2, or maybe > -rc3 at the latest, the ***only*** fixes that should be sent to Linus > would be for regression fixes or for really serious data integrity > issues. The concern was that people were pushing bug fixes in -rc5 or > -rc6 that were in some cases causing regressions. > > (As I recall, Linus laid down the law regarding this policy in his own > inimitable and colorful style; which today would result in all sorts > of tsk, tsking on Hacker News regarding his language. :-) > > 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. > Looks like each maintainer may have his rule which may differ from the rule laid down by Linus. I have 2 network patches which went into 3.10-rc6, though these two bugs are not regressions but has been there even before the git history. On the other hand, 2 of my cgroup bug fixes were queued for 3.11 with stable tag added. And what about Documentation fixes and updates? Should those patches also follow Linus' rule? I guess people have different opinions. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/