Re: When to push bug fixes to mainline

[Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>]

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:
> >> <rant>
> >>   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 are waiting to be merged through the main -rc1 merge window  
> cycle
> >>   is worrying to me.
> >>
> >>   Why are subsystem maintainers holding on to fixes that are
> >>   _supposedly_ affecting all users?  I mean, 21 powerpc core  
> changes
> >>   that I don't see until a -rc1 merge?  It's as if developers don't
> >>   expect people to use a .0 release and are relying on me to get  
> the
> >>   fixes they have burried in their trees out to users.  That's not  
> that
> >>   nice.  6 "core" iscsi-target fixes?  That's the sign of either a
> >>   broken subsystem maintainer, or a lack of understanding what the
> >>   normal -rc kernel releases are supposed to be for.
> >
> > At least at one point in the past, the rule that Linus had laid down
> > after discussing things at Kernel Summits was after -rc2, or maybe
> > -rc3 at the latest, the ***only*** fixes that should be sent to  
> Linus
> > would be for regression fixes or for really serious data integrity
> > issues.  The concern was that people were pushing bug fixes in -rc5  
> or
> > -rc6 that were in some cases causing regressions.
> >
> > (As I recall, Linus laid down the law regarding this policy in his  
> own
> > inimitable and colorful style; which today would result in all sorts
> > of tsk, tsking on Hacker News regarding his language.  :-)
> >
> > 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 lot more testing (a full regression test run  
> for
> > ext4 takes over 24 hours), and for people trying out linux-next.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> 
> Looks like each maintainer may have his rule which may differ from the
> rule laid down by Linus.
> 
> I have 2 network patches which went into 3.10-rc6, though these two  
> bugs
> are not regressions but has been there even before the git history.
> 
> On the other hand, 2 of my cgroup bug fixes were queued for 3.11 with
> stable tag added.
> 
> And what about Documentation fixes and updates? Should those patches
> also follow Linus' rule? I guess people have different opinions.

Documentation fixes that go in as part of a patch series follow the  
rules of that series. Ye olde Documentation maintainer (me) is mostly  
here for catching stuff that would otherwise fall between the cracks,  
and to reorganize Documentation after the fact into less of a "giant  
unorganized heap". (Working on that last bit...)

Documentation fixes aren't going to introduce runtime regressions or  
break "git bisect", and if the noise they generate is limited to the  
Documentation directory the maintainer tools can filter it out.

Rob