Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 3 May 2018 16:48:50 +0200
From:   Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To:     James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc:     Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches
Message-ID: <20180503144850.GC23311@1wt.eu>
References: <20180501163818.GD1468@sasha-vm>
 <20180501194450.GD10479@thunk.org>
 <20180501200019.GA7397@sasha-vm>
 <20180501205448.GE10479@thunk.org>
 <877eol808s.fsf@intel.com>
 <1525357984.3225.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1525357984.3225.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 07:33:04AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> They're definitely for bug fixes, but there's a spectrum: obvious bug
> fixes with no side effects are easy to justify.  More complex bug fixes
> run the risk of having side effects which introduce other bugs, so
> could potentially destabilize the -rc process.  In SCSI we tend to look
> at what the user visible effects of the bug are in the post -rc5 region
> and if they're slight or wouldn't be visible to most users, we'll hold
> them over.  If the fix looks complex and we're not sure we caught the
> ramifications, we often add it to the merge window tree with a cc to
> stable and a note saying to wait X weeks before actually adding to the
> stable tree just to make sure no side effects show up with wider
> testing.  So, as with most things, it's a judgment call for the
> maintainer.

For me this is the right, and responsible way to deal with bug fixes.
Self-control is much more efficient than random rejection and favors
a good analysis.

Willy