* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> [...]
>
> Anyway, the point I'm making is that Q&A is limited and often even
> actively misleading ("Hey, I have three tested-by's, so it must be
> fine"), and we might actually want to have a new class of "non-critical
> patch that might be worth backporting to sta
On 2013/7/17 4:10, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:43:09PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 12:11 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>
>>> People mark stable patches that way already today with a:
>>> Cc: stable # delay for 3.12-rc4
>>> or some such wordin
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 22:10 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:43:09PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 12:11 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > > People mark stable patches that way already today with a:
> > > Cc: stable # delay for 3.12-rc4
>
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 07/16/2013 12:19 AM, David Lang wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Willy Tarreau wrote:
And maybe in the end, having 1/10 patch cause a regression is not *that*
dramatic, and probably less than not fixing the 9 other bugs. In one case
we rely on -stable
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:43:09PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 12:11 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > People mark stable patches that way already today with a:
> > Cc: stable # delay for 3.12-rc4
> > or some such wording. I take those and don't apply them until
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 12:11 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> People mark stable patches that way already today with a:
> Cc: stable # delay for 3.12-rc4
> or some such wording. I take those and don't apply them until the noted
> release happens, so you can do this if needed.
I guess the
At Tue, 16 Jul 2013 09:42:34 -0700 (PDT),
David Lang wrote:
>
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Takashi Iwai wrote:
>
> > At Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:19:16 -0700 (PDT),
> > David Lang wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >>
> >>> And maybe in the end, having 1/10 patch cause a regression
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 02:41:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 11:29 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > Anyway, the point I'm making is that Q&A is limited and often even
> > actively misleading ("Hey, I have three tested-by's, so it must be
> > fine"), and we might actual
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:29:15AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> There have been tons of obvious patches that turned out to simply be
> wrong - often for very non-obvious reasons. Even when they are small.
> And the problems seldom get caught in early testing, often exactly
> because of this self-
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 11:29 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Anyway, the point I'm making is that Q&A is limited and often even
> actively misleading ("Hey, I have three tested-by's, so it must be
> fine"), and we might actually want to have a new class of
> "non-critical patch that might be worth b
On 07/16/2013 12:19 AM, David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
>> And maybe in the end, having 1/10 patch cause a regression is not *that*
>> dramatic, and probably less than not fixing the 9 other bugs. In one case
>> we rely on -stable to merge the 10 fixes, and on the o
Hi Takashi,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 06:40:39PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> IMO, one of the reasons is the nature of stable-release: the stable
> tree is released soon after reviews of patches, so no actual
> regression tests can be done before the release.
>
> For finding a regression, patch rev
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>
> Linux testing is (realistically) done by inflicting changes on gradually wider
> sets of end users.
However, one thing that people should keep in mind that the testing is
often self-selecting.
This is particularly true for "obvious fixes".
>> Maybe some QA period before the release might help, but who would
>> care? (Especially under the situation where everybody has own x.y
>> stable tree?)
>
> Hopefully people tracking the upstream stable trees would be throwing
> any pre-release stuff into their QA processes before it was officia
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 06:40:39PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> Maybe some QA period before the release might help, but who would
> care? (Especially under the situation where everybody has own x.y
> stable tree?)
Hopefully people tracking the upstream stable trees would be throwing
any pre-rele
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Takashi Iwai wrote:
At Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:19:16 -0700 (PDT),
David Lang wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Willy Tarreau wrote:
And maybe in the end, having 1/10 patch cause a regression is not *that*
dramatic, and probably less than not fixing the 9 other bugs. In one case
we
At Tue, 16 Jul 2013 00:19:16 -0700 (PDT),
David Lang wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> > And maybe in the end, having 1/10 patch cause a regression is not *that*
> > dramatic, and probably less than not fixing the 9 other bugs. In one case
> > we rely on -stable to merge th
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Willy Tarreau wrote:
And maybe in the end, having 1/10 patch cause a regression is not *that*
dramatic, and probably less than not fixing the 9 other bugs. In one case
we rely on -stable to merge the 10 fixes, and on the other case we'd rely
on -stable to just revert one of
On 07/11/2013 10:25:51 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
On 2013/7/12 8:50, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:01:17PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>
>> I'm sitting on top of over 170 more patches that have been
marked for
>> the stable releases right now that are not included in thi
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 10:59 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> >
>> > Perhaps just make a separate stable branch, where you cherry-pick the
>> > specific patch using the -x option. Add
On Friday, July 12, 2013 06:32:11 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 02:24:07AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 11, 2013 08:34:30 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:57:46PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 20
* Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:28 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> > OK, just read up some more on git notes, and *both* the assumptions I
> > had made about git notes were fundamentally wrong. Not sure how well
> > they would scale, though, but stuffing metadata like ad
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 02:24:07AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, July 11, 2013 08:34:30 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:57:46PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:50:23PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > >
> > > > In any case
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 08:34:30 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:57:46PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:50:23PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >
> > > In any case, I've been very conservative in _not_ pushing bug fixes to
> > > Linus after
On 07/12/2013 01:33 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> Is it _really_ all that hard to remember what to mark for stable
> inclusion? If you figure it out after you have committed the patch,
> then just put a copy of it somewhere to remind yourself. That seems to
> be what both David and I do with
On 07/12/2013 12:53 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:44 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> They can be useful for "local" notes (they can be very powerful for
>> certain workflows), but they won't be pulled and pushed by me.
>
> Perhaps notes can be used as that reminder to sen
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 13:33 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> That's what mailboxes are for, use a script of 'git send-email' to send
> it to yourself and save it somewhere. Use patchwork. Use a text file
> to remind yourself. Use quilt, like Andrew does, he has a great track
> record of marki
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 03:53:17PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:44 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > They can be useful for "local" notes (they can be very powerful for
> > certain workflows), but they won't be pulled and pushed by me.
>
> Perhaps notes can be used as
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:44 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> They can be useful for "local" notes (they can be very powerful for
>> certain workflows), but they won't be pulled and pushed by me.
>
> Perhaps notes can be used as that reminde
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 12:44 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> They can be useful for "local" notes (they can be very powerful for
> certain workflows), but they won't be pulled and pushed by me.
Perhaps notes can be used as that reminder to send to stable. Tag a
commit with a note, and have some aut
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:28 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> OK, just read up some more on git notes, and *both* the assumptions I
> had made about git notes were fundamentally wrong. Not sure how well
> they would scale, though, but stuffing metadata like additional
> Acked-by:, Tested-by: and Cc
On 07/12/2013 11:16 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> This relates to the "a posteori metadata" problem with git. In theory I
> think git notes should handle those, but I have to admit that git notes
> somewhat creep me out because there doesn't seem to be any version
> control on them, and as far as
On 07/12/2013 10:57 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:28:36AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:20:46AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>> On the subject of the stable tree: could we get a standard format for
>>> requesting post-inclusion elevation of
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 10:59 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps just make a separate stable branch, where you cherry-pick the
> > specific patch using the -x option. Adds a "(cherry picked from
> > commit ...)". Then you could have
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 01:57:18PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:28:36AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:20:46AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > > On the subject of the stable tree: could we get a standard format for
> > > requesting post-
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:50 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> Perhaps just make a separate stable branch, where you cherry-pick the
> specific patch using the -x option. Adds a "(cherry picked from
> commit ...)". Then you could have some filter that monitors Linus
> commits and when a commit matche
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:28:36AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:20:46AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > On the subject of the stable tree: could we get a standard format for
> > requesting post-inclusion elevation of patches to stable status? It
> > isn't all that
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 10:28 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> Yes, this requires you to remember to do this after it hits Linus's
> tree, so you could do like David does for networking, and keep a
> seperate tree to send to me specifically for stable patches. I think he
> uses patchwork, but I k
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:20:46AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On the subject of the stable tree: could we get a standard format for
> requesting post-inclusion elevation of patches to stable status? It
> isn't all that unusual that the need for -stable is highlighted after a
> patch has been i
On the subject of the stable tree: could we get a standard format for
requesting post-inclusion elevation of patches to stable status? It
isn't all that unusual that the need for -stable is highlighted after a
patch has been included in a maintainer's tree, and rebasing to add
stable metadata anno
On 07/11/2013 05:50 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> At least at one point in the past...
>
And at at least one *other* point in the past, Linus stated that
"holding back anything with a Cc: stable waiting for the merge window is
wrong". This would imply that the post-rc5-or-so policy and the stabl
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>> > Maybe the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of holding back
>> > changes and trying to avoid the risk of introducing regressions;
>> > perhaps this would be a good topic to discuss at
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Maybe the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of holding back
> > changes and trying to avoid the risk of introducing regressions;
> > perhaps this would be a good topic to discuss at the Kernel Summit.
>
> Bah, I sent out a similar email abo
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 20:34 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:57:46PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:50:23PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >
> > > In any case, I've been very conservative in _not_ pushing bug fixes to
> > > Linus after -rc
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:50:23PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:01:17PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > I'm sitting on top of over 170 more patches that have been marked for
> > the stable releases right now that are not included in this set of
> > releas
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:57:46PM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:50:23PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> > In any case, I've been very conservative in _not_ pushing bug fixes to
> > Linus after -rc3 (unless they are fixing a regression or the bug fix
> > is super-seri
On 2013/7/12 8:50, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:01:17PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>
>> I'm sitting on top of over 170 more patches that have been marked for
>> the stable releases right now that are not included in this set of
>> releases. The fact that there ar
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:50:23PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> In any case, I've been very conservative in _not_ pushing bug fixes to
> Linus after -rc3 (unless they are fixing a regression or the bug fix
> is super-serious); I'd much rather have them cook in the ext4 tree
> where they can get a
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 20:50 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Maybe the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of holding back
> changes and trying to avoid the risk of introducing regressions;
> perhaps this would be a good topic to discuss at the Kernel Summit.
Bah, I sent out a similar email
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 20:50 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:01:17PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >
> > I'm sitting on top of over 170 more patches that have been marked for
> > the stable releases right now that are not included in this set of
> > releases. Th
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:01:17PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> I'm sitting on top of over 170 more patches that have been marked for
> the stable releases right now that are not included in this set of
> releases. The fact that there are this many patches for stable stuff
> that
51 matches
Mail list logo
