Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:47323 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966018Ab2DLUIE (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:08:04 -0400 Received: by pbcun15 with SMTP id un15so2766313pbc.19 for ; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:08:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:07:59 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Adrian Chadd , Sergio Correia , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-wireless Mailing List , Sujith Manoharan , "ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" , "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review Message-ID: <20120412200759.GB23764@kroah.com> (sfid-20120412_220830_019715_63C68FC5) References: <20120411231102.GA6404@kroah.com> <20120412002927.GA23167@kroah.com> <20120412011313.GA23764@kroah.com> <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:43:33PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > On 12 April 2012 09:49, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > > >>> > >>> A revert is the same as a patch. ?It needs to be in Linus's tree before > >>> I can add it to the stable releases. > >> > >> Right, because otherwise people's systems would actually work. > >> > >> But hey, as I said, following rules is more important, regardless of > >> what the rules are, and why they are there. The rules that actually > >> triggered this issue in v3.3.1, as this is not in v3.3. > >> > >> You could just accept that the patch should have never landed in > >> v3.3.1 in the first place, but it's much easier to arbitrarily keep > >> stacking patches without thinking too much about them. > > > > Greg is doing the right thing here. We face the same deal in FreeBSD - > > people want fixes to go into a release branch first, but if you do > > that you break the development flow - which is "stuff goes into -HEAD > > and is then backported to the release branches." > > > > If you don't do this, you risk having people do (more, all) > > development and testing on a release branch and never test -HEAD (or > > "upstream linux" here). Once you open that particular flood gate, it's > > hard to close. > > But this is exactly the opposite; the patch that broke things is in > the 'release branch' (3.3.1); it's not in upstream (3.3). Sure, it's > also on a later upstream, which is also broken. What is the git commit id of the patch in 3.3.1 that caused this to break? This is the first time I have heard that 3.3 worked and 3.3.1 did not work. Someone needs to tell me these things... greg k-h