On 21 September 2018 at 17:49, Dylan Baker <dy...@pnwbakers.com> wrote: > Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-09-21 09:07:58) >> On 21 September 2018 at 16:55, Dylan Baker <dy...@pnwbakers.com> wrote: >> > Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-09-21 08:47:30) >> >> On 21 September 2018 at 08:19, Juan A. Suarez Romero >> >> <jasua...@igalia.com> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 20:16 +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:33 PM Eric Engestrom >> >> >> <eric.engest...@intel.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Thursday, 2018-09-20 19:17:57 +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote: >> >> >> > > Was missing the init, found by Emil. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Fixes: d17443a4593 "radv: Use build ID if available for cache >> >> >> > > UUID." >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Reviewed-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engest...@intel.com> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > CC: <mesa-sta...@lists.freedesktop.org> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Cc'ing mesa-stable has no effect when you're already adding the >> >> >> > proper Fixes: tag :) >> >> >> >> >> >> Last time I asked about the difference between Fixes and CC, the >> >> >> conclusion I got that Fixes is only best effort for the stable >> >> >> branches and that if it does not apply it will be dropped silently, >> >> >> while for the CC ones the release manager will notify you. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > In previous releases that was the way it worked: we always our best >> >> > effort to >> >> > apply CC and Fixes patches. The difference was that if we couldn't >> >> > apply the >> >> > patch, then we were only notifying in the pre-announcement "Rejected" >> >> > section >> >> > about the CC, and silently ignoring the Fixes. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > But nowadays, we notify about all the candidates to stable, which are >> >> > CC and >> >> > Fixes. >> >> > >> >> Here is an alternative wording, hopefully it will make things clearer: >> >> >> >> Both CC and Fixes work and having both does not hurt. >> >> >> >> Fixes provides clear indication when/where the problem originates. >> >> Cc _explicitly_ requests the patch to be in stable - that's why we >> >> have the list + late nominations. >> >> >> >> It _explicit_ nomination does _not_ apply then the nominator is informed. >> >> >> >> -Emil >> > >> > Yeah, that's not useful. We don't need a "you can put this in if you want >> > but >> > don't tell me if you didn't". Either it's nominated or it's not. If Fixes: >> > doesn't mean "I want this in any stable branch with commit X" then we >> > should >> > stop using the tag. >> > >> Fixes means "I want this _anywhere_ with commit X". No idea how you >> read my comment otherwise ;-) >> >> -Emil > > Where you said CC is _explicit_ but fixes isn't. Having two ways to do the > same > thing that are subtly different seems like a bad idea to me. > > I'm going to admit this is just another reason that I feel like our whole > stable > process is rather fragile and tedious. We have three ways to nominate a patch > that are all subtly different, but those differences are not clearly > documented.
Keep in mind that before I started the documentation was a mere fraction of what it is today. As I said multiple times if something is unclear - ask _and_ send patches to clarify the documentation. Sadly close to no patches appear :-( Our thinking, and hence expressions vary, so I'm more than happy to change the docs so that they are better suited for a wider audience. As a TL;DR _nothing_ is rejected silently ;-) -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
