Return-path: Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:65161 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754671Ab2DNQDH (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:03:07 -0400 Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 18:02:42 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Jonathan Nieder , Stefan Richter , Adrian Chadd , Greg KH , 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: <20120414160242.GG19802@1wt.eu> (sfid-20120414_180311_463248_FCB59FA7) References: <20120413105746.10ffb120@stein> <20120413154216.476a02ac@stein> <20120413230525.GA13995@burratino> <20120414054401.GC19802@1wt.eu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 06:43:06PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > I understand you use 'stable' as guarantee, and I know it works, but > do you *need* this guarantee? > > And before you go on why you need this guarantee to avoid fixes to be > lost, this is an *entirely different thing*; we are not talking about > fixes in 'stable' that don't exist in mainline--for which there is > evidence that those caused problems in the past, we are talking about > reverting patches from 'stable' that are not part of the upstream > release from where the 'stable' branch was forked--*nobody* has showed > any evidence that this has happened before and caused issues. Why make a special case for the version from which stable was derived ? That doesn't make sense at all to me since by definition, *all* patches that are in stable were not in this version ! Take it simpler if you want : *all* patches in stable need an upstream commit ID, whether they're backports or reverts. You don't revert a patch from stable, you backport a revert from upstream. Willy