On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 07:33:04AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > They're definitely for bug fixes, but there's a spectrum: obvious bug > fixes with no side effects are easy to justify. More complex bug fixes > run the risk of having side effects which introduce other bugs, so > could potentially destabilize the -rc process. In SCSI we tend to look > at what the user visible effects of the bug are in the post -rc5 region > and if they're slight or wouldn't be visible to most users, we'll hold > them over. If the fix looks complex and we're not sure we caught the > ramifications, we often add it to the merge window tree with a cc to > stable and a note saying to wait X weeks before actually adding to the > stable tree just to make sure no side effects show up with wider > testing. So, as with most things, it's a judgment call for the > maintainer.
For me this is the right, and responsible way to deal with bug fixes. Self-control is much more efficient than random rejection and favors a good analysis. Willy
