On Mon 2018-04-16 16:39:20, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:28:50PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >
> >> >> Is there a reason not to take LED fixes if they fix a bug and don't
> >> >> cause a regression? Sure, we can draw some arbitrary line, maybe
> >> >> designate some subsystems that are more "important" than others, but
> >> >> what's the point?
> >> >
> >> >There's a tradeoff.
> >> >
> >> >You want to fix serious bugs in stable, and you really don't want
> >> >regressions in stable. And ... stable not having 1000s of patches
> >> >would be nice, too.
> >>
> >> I don't think we should use a number cap here, but rather look at the
> >> regression rate: how many patches broke something?
> >>
> >> Since the rate we're seeing now with AUTOSEL is similar to what we were
> >> seeing before AUTOSEL, what's the problem it's causing?
> >
> >Regression rate should not be the only criteria.
> >
> >More patches mean bigger chance customer's patches will have a
> >conflict with something in -stable, for example.
> 
> Out of tree patches can't be a consideration here. There are no
> guarantees for out of tree code, ever.

Out of tree code is not consideration for mainline, agreed. Stable
should be different.

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html