Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:47:33 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Sergio Correia <lists@uece.net>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	stable@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	linux-wireless Mailing List <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sujith Manoharan <c_manoha@qca.qualcomm.com>,
	"ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" <ath9k-devel@venema.h4ckr.net>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Subject: Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review
Message-ID: <20120414104733.GA4871@gmail.com> (sfid-20120414_124757_555115_ADDB6095)
References: <20120412011313.GA23764@kroah.com>
 <CAMP44s2q+bQE3-zsX4bs=sQDt4jf8eE5bwZ8V88UjodjRyAjog@mail.gmail.com>
 <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com>
 <CAMP44s1T4EVwpzDuV_vV0Zh-5WcPCwdw9eeOfL17Geqp_UFN-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFwKYYgZcBX=L-q_6UdvkvFai+yjzgVxq7cA+HLL-Zojhw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMP44s14SQont1wyMeOuWcXUT3U5Tgnoj9mbbgOdVXY_hN0+-w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFyLEJsz1yvu4bYe+RHdhLd-XXEScxtAgje=fyuUM+1XxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMP44s0yPPqFUO4963MhNb8+c_A=xJi4-eFPJ3s+a1TJ8ZfTtQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+55aFwaOGbD6S_7So34ZuANG-6fZXZhEah8G0X7McDGhionSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMP44s06jrPBzf5Lt86-GDxD_PxqcaeJgmYS4tJhcvDdf=J5zA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s06jrPBzf5Lt86-GDxD_PxqcaeJgmYS4tJhcvDdf=J5zA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org


* Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Felipe Contreras
> > <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure, but removing that patch from the stable tree is not 
> >> going the change that information; we already know the 
> >> patch is wrong.
> >
> > .. and we wait until it has been fixed in mainline so that 
> > we *know* that information doesn't get lost.
> 
> So why don't we pick potentially dangerous patches that might 
> benefit from some testing, put them in 'stable', and if there 
> are problems, make sure they get fixed in upstream first?
>
> Or for that matter totally broken patches we want to make sure 
> they get fixed in upstream.
> 
> Because the priority of the 'stable' tree is *stability*. Is 
> it not?
> 
> But what you are saying is: *before* the final review, even a 
> hint that the patch might cause problems is reason enough to 
> drop it from stable, but *after* the review, if we know the 
> patch is totally broken, then it's the opposite; we really 
> want it in.

What you don't seem to understand is that there are good reasons 
why we first fix bugs upstream, then in -stable. Greg explained 
it to you, Linus explained it to you and so did many others.

Having an order of patches *necessarily* means that the 
development tree will get fixes sooner than the stable tree. In 
other words, this *necessarily* means that the stable tree - and 
its users - will have to wait a little bit more to have the fix. 
In the worst-case this 'have to wait a little bit longer' might 
span the time between two minor stable kernel releases.

You seem to equate this 'have to wait a little bit longer to get 
the fix' property of the maintenance model with 'we don't care 
about stable tree users' - that claim is obviously idiotic and 
most of your arguments in this thread are idiotic as well.

Thanks,

	Ingo