On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 2:43 PM, Sasha Levin via Ksummit-discuss <ksummit-disc...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 01:59:18PM -0700, David Lang wrote: >>On Tue, 8 May 2018, Sasha Levin wrote: >> >>>There's no one, for example, who picked up vanilla v4.16 and plans to >>>keep using it for a year. >> >>Actually, at a prior job I would do almost exactly that. >> >>I never intended to go a year without updating, but it would happen if >>nothing came up that was related to the hardware/features I was >>running. >> >>so 'no one uses the Linus kernel is false. > > My point is not that "no one ever uses Linus kernel" but that no one > takes one of those kernels and plans to stick with it for 3 months until > the next one comes up, even if there are updates relevant to that user. > > Yes, some users will use a .0 release until either Greg releases a > -stable, or until the next -rc is out. > > What I'm trying to say is that there is that the .0 release makes some > people rush poorly tested commits in it even though the .0 release is > not significant in any way.
I think we should take pride in our releases, so I disagree that it is insignificant. If a maintainer is rushing things into late rc's and breaking things then they need that feedback, not de-emphasize the importance of ".0" releases. Could the bar be raised higher on late fixes, perhaps. I otherwise think the message is already clear "changes at -rc6,7,8 had better be worthy of and coming in late and be accompanied with good explanation".
