On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 11:36:26AM +0200, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 10:43:05AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> 
> > If maintainers are overwhelmed by extra work needed for stable, 
> > "offloading to Greg" doesn't sound like a proper solution to me at all. 
> > "Fixing a maintainer workflow for that particular subsystem" (such as 
> > extending the group of maintainers) does.
> 
> I think one of the big things we're missing here is QA.  I don't
> personally have the hardware that would allow me to test a huge chunk of
> the code in my subsystems, I'm relying on things like kernelci.org for
> the bulk of it.  There's some work going on on getting Greg's stable
> queue tested more which will hopefully make things better but it's not
> 100% there yet.

For patch merge, the expectation is that it is tested against upstream.
For stable, should we also mandate that it be verified against the stable
tree(s) as well, or if Maintainer feels it is stable material then we
can ask Submitters to test before CCing stable...

> There's also the volume of stable trees to consider here - we've got a
> large number of stable trees which seem to be maintained in different
> ways with different tooling.  One big advantage from my point of view
> as a maintainer with the current model is that I don't have to figure
> out which I care about or anything like that.

Yeah that also an issue...

-- 
~Vinod