Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com ([74.125.83.46]:47360 "EHLO mail-ee0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750869Ab2DPVSP convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:18:15 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120416205856.GA22298@kroah.com> References: <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> <20120413105746.10ffb120@stein> <20120413190819.9469.qmail@stuge.se> <20120416162710.GA24100@kroah.com> <20120416205856.GA22298@kroah.com> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:18:13 +0300 Message-ID: (sfid-20120416_231834_470855_FF610B10) Subject: Re: [ath9k-devel] [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review From: Felipe Contreras To: Greg KH Cc: Stefan Richter , "ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" , linux-wireless Mailing List , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , akpm@linux-foundation.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:11:05PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Greg KH wrote: >> > Just one minor correction in this looney email thread: >> > >> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:53:22AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> v3.3.x on the other hand are *not* stable. They contain patches >> >> backported from v3.4, but nobody guarantees they will work. There was >> >> no v3.3.1-rc1, so the first time the patches compromising v3.3.1 were >> >> generally tested together is in v3.3.1, at which point if somebody >> >> finds issues, it's too late; bad patches are *not* going to be removed >> >> in v3.3.2. >> > >> > Of course there was a 3.3.1-rc1, see the linux-kernel archives for the >> > announcemen and the individual patches.  kernel.org has the large patch >> > itself if you like that format instead. >> >> I don't see it here: >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git;a=tags >> >> If you really want people to try it, why not tag it? > > That would be because I don't keep it in that tree.  It is in a quilt > tree you can find in the stable-queue.git repo, and I have never tagged > -rc1 releases there.  No one has ever asked for it before, so in the > past 6 years of stable releases, I guess no one ever needed it. > > ketchup and tarballs seem to work well for others, perhaps you can use > that as well (hint, ketchup on top of the linux-stable tree works just > fine for testing this.) Perhaps the current process will be continue to be OK, but I do believe a tagged v3.3.1-rc1 would have catched the ath9k issue. Hopefully that would mean it could have been dropped/reverted for v3.3.1. I used to compile my own kernels and use your stable tree, but this a new laptop and I was using Arch Linux which automatically updated to v3.3.1, and with no network I had no way to revert to v3.2.x. Fortunately I had the kernel sources available, but I wonder how many people were completely stuck. If some other 3.x.1 release get broken this way, I would seriously consider tagging v3.x.1-rc1 as well. It works for Linus' tree. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras