Date:   Sat, 11 Mar 2023 06:25:59 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Cc:     Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: AUTOSEL process
Message-ID: <ZAwe95meyCiv6qc4@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20230226034256.771769-1-sashal@kernel.org>
 <20230226034256.771769-12-sashal@kernel.org>
 <Y/rbGxq8oAEsW28j@sol.localdomain>
 <Y/rufenGRpoJVXZr@sol.localdomain>
 <Y/ux9JLHQKDOzWHJ@sol.localdomain>
 <Y/y70zJj4kjOVfXa@sashalap>
 <Y/zswi91axMN8OsA@sol.localdomain>
 <Y/zxKOBTLXFjSVyI@sol.localdomain>
 <ZATC3djtr9/uPX+P@duo.ucw.cz>
 <ZAewdAql4PBUYOG5@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZAewdAql4PBUYOG5@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 09:45:24PM +0000, Eric Biggers wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 10:18:35PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > I believe that -stable would be more useful without AUTOSEL process.
> 
> There has to be a way to ensure that security fixes that weren't properly tagged
> make it to stable anyway.  So, AUTOSEL is necessary, at least in some form.  I
> think that debating *whether it should exist* is a distraction from what's
> actually important, which is that the current AUTOSEL process has some specific
> problems, and these specific problems need to be fixed...

I agree with you, that we need autosel and we also need autosel to
be better.  I actually see Pavel's mail as a datapoint (or "anecdote",
if you will) in support of that; the autosel process currently works
so badly that a long-time contributor thinks it's worse than nothing.

Sasha, what do you need to help you make this better?