Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1536139
| From | Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested |
| Date | 2016-12-05 15:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sL2KC-5N1-43@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <sL12a-4GU-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <sL1bQ-4Zh-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <sL1Yi-5fD-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sL2hA-5Dc-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <sL2rg-5Gq-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon 05-12-16 15:21:37, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 03:14:51PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 05-12-16 14:58:24, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 02:05:08PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Mon 05-12-16 13:52:36, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:21:54AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > > From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently if a patch should aim a stable tree backport one should add > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # $version > > > > > > > > > > > > to the s-o-b block. This has two major disadvantages a) it spams the > > > > > > stable mailing list with patches which are just discussed and not merged > > > > > > yet > > > > > > > > > > That's not a problem in that I know I like to see them to give me a > > > > > "heads up" that something is coming down the pipeline soon. > > > > > > > > Are you really tracking all those discussion to catch resulting patches > > > > in the Linus' tree? I simply fail to see a point having N versions of > > > > the patch on the stable mailing list before it gets picked up from the > > > > _Linus'_ anyayw. > > > > > > I do scan them, sometimes I even find problems with them (like a zram > > > "fix" that went by this weekend.) So yes, it is always good to have > > > more reviewers on patches, don't you think? > > > > Yes I do agree that more review is better. But then the stable mailing > > list is a complete failure in that resopect - at least for me. Why? > > Simply because it doesn't contain discussion for the stable inclusion > > but rather something that eventually might happen to become stable > > material. This what I call noise and the reason why I've stopped > > following the stable ML. > > That doesn't make sense, I want to see patches that are being proposed > for the stable kernels _before_ they get into the maintainers and > Linus's tree, as then, it is almost always too late. Too late for what? I am still not sure I see your point. Are you suggesting that a review from the stable mailing list, which wouldn't be a part of a standard review process normally, has helped to identify issues? > I will point out the zram patch this weekend as an example of that, > where if the original had gone in, it would be a while before the > "fixup" would have then gone in, and the abi deprecation would probably > have missed 4.11 entirely. I do not have a full context here. Do you have a pointer please? > Don't you want to catch things earlier rather than later? Sure, but I fail to see the role of the stable ML in this area. I might be underastimating its role of course. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-05 08:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-12-05 14:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-05 14:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2016-12-05 14:20 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-05 14:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> - 2016-12-05 14:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-12-05 15:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-05 15:20 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-12-05 15:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-05 15:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> - 2016-12-05 15:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH] doc: change the way how the stable backport is requested Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-12-05 16:00 +0100
csiph-web