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 BF5E8FA4 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 21:13:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from NAM04-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr700107.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.70.107]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2AA37C7 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 21:13:44 +0000 (UTC) From: Sasha Levin To: Greg KH Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 21:13:42 +0000 Message-ID: <20180907211341.GJ16300@sasha-vm> References: <20180905101710.73137669@gandalf.local.home> <20180907004944.GD16300@sasha-vm> <20180907014930.GE16300@sasha-vm> <2534be10-2e70-6932-39c1-7caca2cff044@roeck-us.net> <4990d2c1-6f26-0500-9afa-986a61fce3bf@redhat.com> <20180907150623.GH16300@sasha-vm> <9fb15d7c-c59f-ee21-9c30-6d81d53a1456@redhat.com> <20180907160945.GI16300@sasha-vm> <20180907202328.GE25756@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20180907202328.GE25756@kroah.com> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <0A061B590C8D3D4A8F4DAFB6D35B75A4@namprd21.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Bug-introducing patches List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 10:23:28PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: >On Fri, Sep 07, 2018 at 04:09:46PM +0000, Sasha Levin via Ksummit-discuss = wrote: >> What are your thoughts about a stable-next branch of sorts where we can >> push stable tagged fixes as soon as they hit either Linus's tree or >> maybe the pending-fixes branch in linux-next? >> >> This way we'll have a longer term stable tree to test, and Greg can just >> cut releases from there. > >No one will pay attention to "stable-next", why would putting something >there be any different from what I do now? We run all of the normal >bots on the stable-rc releases, putting it out for a week longer would >not cause anything else to happen. We run bots on stable-rc, but the point I think Laura was trying to make (and I agree with) is that the 2-3 days of stable-rc isn't enough for non-bot tests. We'd like to have actual users run stable-rc as well. So yes, putting it for longer will add a lot more testing. So the stable-next is just a way for folks to test out new stable commits without you having to do longer -rc cycles or maintaining extra trees. Right now your workflow seems to be: 1. Grab a batch of ~2-3 week old commits from Linus's tree. 2. Review, basic tests and send stable-rc notification. 3. Wait a few days for reviews. 4. Ship it. The part that's tricky here is that there are only a few days during step 3 to test out that stable-rc kernel. Not enough for Fedora to let their testers to get it and play around with. With a -next branch, this might look something like this: 1. Grab stable tagged commits as they go in Linus's tree and put them on top of the appropriate stable-next branches (i.e. linux-4.14.y-next). 2. X times a week pick a batch of ~2-3 week old commits, put them in the -rc branch and send out a review request. 3. Wait a few days for reviews. 4. Ship it. So it's very similar, but between steps 1 and 2 folks have a chance to further test out stable commits. This is something that Fedora, for example, could offer to it's testers as a kernel option. -- Thanks, Sasha=