From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756410Ab3GLBvN (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:51:13 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:7142 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753874Ab3GLBvM (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:51:12 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Odoa/2vY c=1 sm=0 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:17 a=Drc5e87SC40A:10 a=E3gBSPWCDXAA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=KGjhK52YXX0A:10 a=zNXoGfytzK0A:10 a=Ll2u-3dKkrkwbACT3mwA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 67.255.60.225 Message-ID: <1373593870.17876.70.camel@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review From: Steven Rostedt To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Dave Jones , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:51:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130711224455.GA17222@kroah.com> References: <20130711214830.611455274@linuxfoundation.org> <20130711222935.GA11340@redhat.com> <20130711224455.GA17222@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 15:44 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > For .10 I had to start making a list of "shit that's broken that there's > > an outstanding patch for" and nagging people to send them week after week. > > Every time I reported a new bug I'd hit, I'd have to explain I wasn't running > > Linus' tree because there was so much other crap I had to carry just to > > get things to a baseline of stability before starting tests. > > > > By rc7 things got a lot better, but if we have fixes sitting around in > > git trees for weeks on end with no progress, that kinda sucks. > > We have patches with assigned CVE numbers sitting in subsystem trees > that didn't hit Linus's tree until this merge window. Now granted, I > don't necessarily agree that they were worth CVEs, but really, holding > them off from being merged for 2 months or so is really bad, and means > that something seems a bit broken with our development process. > > And thanks for nagging people, I really appreciate it, sad it's > necessary. What I try to do is, get all "stable" patches in before -rc4 is out. Once -rc4 is out, then I get a bit more picky with what to push to Linus. If it's not a regression (something that's been broken for a while) I don't push it. -rc5, I get even pickier, and by -rc6 and beyond, I only push things that may crash the kernel. If things just give bad output (for tracing), I tag it with stable and wait for the merge window. 3.10 was actually really bad for me. I had some major changes done to ftrace, and there were a lot of patches sent to me after -rc4 came out. A lot of them were nits and didn't crash the kernel, thus I only tagged them with stable. Some of them, we didn't get correct until Linus opened the merge window. Maybe this would be a good KS topic. What exactly is appropriate to push during the -rc's. Perhaps have criteria for the -rc levels. -rc1-3, take all bug fixes. -rc4,5, regressions, and more substantial bugs -rc6-.. get your act together. Only critical bug fixes. ?? -- Steve