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 ECDE71285 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 14:44:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 823557AF for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 14:44:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 10:44:11 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Mark Brown Message-ID: <20180905104411.572c5112@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20180905101159.GD9781@sirena.org.uk> References: <5c9c41b2-14f9-41cc-ae85-be9721f37c86@redhat.com> <20180904213340.GD16300@sasha-vm> <20180905081658.GB24902@quack2.suse.cz> <20180905085642.GA29931@kroah.com> <20180905101159.GD9781@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Greg KH , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Stable trees and release time List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 11:11:59 +0100 Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 10:56:42AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > > - We have finally woken some subsystem maintainers up into > > actually properly tagging patches for stable. We used to have > > a horrid rate of this happening, and it is getting better. > > However, we still have whole major subsystems that _never_ tag > > anything, which is a problem, so things will get larger. > > Some of us have been doing this for 5+ years :/ Yep. > > > - Sasha's work in finding the patches that maintainers/developer > > fail to tag is paying off really well, which also increases > > the size. > > These and the few other patches that I didn't tag for stable myself are > the only ones I try to review reliably, the others I already looked at > for stable at least once and especially where things are automated it's > better to have some manual checking. It's good that Sasha's stuff is > flagged now, and most other submissions are obvious as well, so that's > fairly easy to do and means that the review burden is relatively light. I tend to too. As there's some fixes I don't tag for stable because it doesn't "break" things too bad (things that were always broken for years, but nobody noticed.. like a bad format of the trace output), or I have another fix for the problem. For instance, I just replied to an AUTOSEL patch that fixed a symptom of a bug, but the bug fix itself was tagged for stable. The symptom fix was just to make the code more "robust" and shouldn't hurt anything, but it really wasn't a bug fix. I don't think it was necessary to backport that, but if someone else thinks it is, I'll just let it be. -- Steve