From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DC8C413 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:21:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 973151EE for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2016 08:21:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2016 10:21:30 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Guenter Roeck Message-ID: <20160804082130.GB27204@kroah.com> References: <20160802153400.GD10376@sirena.org.uk> <3268954.rXb0BJAX6c@vostro.rjw.lan> <87oa5aqjmq.fsf@intel.com> <20160803110935.GA26270@kroah.com> <87a8guq9y8.fsf@intel.com> <20160803132607.GA31662@kroah.com> <20160803141937.GA9180@kroah.com> <57A21252.7000407@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57A21252.7000407@roeck-us.net> Cc: James Bottomley , Trond Myklebust , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 08:48:34AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On 08/03/2016 07:45 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > Has anything changed in the process that'd just make patches like this one > > > > to be not merged these days? > > > > > > We have Guenter's test-bot that has helped out immensely here with this. > > > > That's very good to know, I admit that I have close to zero idea about how > > the stable -rcs are being tested. > > > > ... and when it doesn't work because I messed it up, we get issues such as 3.18 > and 4.1 being broken for mips and sparc64 because a couple of patches which don't > apply to those kernels were tagged with an unqualified Cc: stable and applied. > > So, if anything, the one problem I see with the current stable process is > those unqualified stable tags. Maybe those should be deprecated; expecting > stable maintainers to figure out if a patch applies to a given stable branch > or not is a bit too much to ask for. With stable releases as far back as > 3.2 (or 338,020 commits as of right now) it is almost guaranteed that a > patch tagged with an unqualified Cc: stable doesn't apply to all branches. As I just wrote to Steve, it's up to the maintainer of such a longterm kernel branch to do the work of determining what needs to be backported, we can't force maintainers to do this work, that's not going to scale at all, sorry. thanks, greg k-h