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 1E4BF8A1 for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 05:41:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from saturn.retrosnub.co.uk (saturn.retrosnub.co.uk [178.18.118.26]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1838DAC for ; Fri, 5 Aug 2016 05:41:18 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <57A21252.7000407@roeck-us.net> References: <871t27s1i8.fsf@intel.com> <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-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Jonathan Cameron Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2016 10:16:45 +0530 To: Guenter Roeck , Jiri Kosina , Greg KH Message-ID: <9FC17151-EC2A-493F-8048-6FA9290A2CDF@jic23.retrosnub.co.uk> 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 3 August 2016 21:18:34 GMT+05:30, 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. > >>> It seems most of these can all come down to "we need more testing", >> >> That as well, but the main message I am trying to push here is "we >need a >> little bit more thinking while anotating patches for stable". >> >> It might very well be that some variation of what has been just >proposed >> elsewhere in this thread (requiring all the stable commits to either >> contain explicit 'Fixes' tag, or be explicitly annotated by the >kernel >> version range they should be applied to) would help tremendously on >that >> front. >> >>> [1] The people that are doing stable tree testing are doing a great >job, >>> Guenter, Shuah, kernelci, my build-bot, 0-day, etc. >> > >Maybe I or someone else can give a 10-15 minute presentation about the >current >test efforts to bring everyone up to date on what is being tested and >how. >Maybe we should make such a presentation a regular event at major >conferences. I would certainly find this or a regular lwn feature or similar both interesting and useful. Jonathan > >Guenter > >_______________________________________________ >Ksummit-discuss mailing list >Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org >https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.