From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:34756 "EHLO mail-wg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754456Ab2DLTGJ convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 15:06:09 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20120411231102.GA6404@kroah.com> <20120412002927.GA23167@kroah.com> <20120412011313.GA23764@kroah.com> <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:05:46 -0700 Message-ID: (sfid-20120412_210639_460941_B2A3CE53) Subject: Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Greg KH , Sergio Correia , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-wireless Mailing List , Sujith Manoharan , "ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" , "John W. Linville" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> A revert is the same as a patch.  It needs to be in Linus's tree before >> I can add it to the stable releases. > > Right, because otherwise people's systems would actually work. There are rules for a damn good reason. The rule for -stable is that the changes *have* to be in upstream, for a very simple reason: otherwise bugs get re-introduced. If -stable starts revertign things that aren't reverted up-stream, what do you think happens to the *next* kernel version? We have those -stable rules for a very good reason - we used to not have them, and the above "oops, we fixed it in stable, but the fix never made it upstream" happened *all*the*time*. I don't think you realize how well kernel development has worked over the last few years. And the stable rules are part of it. So stop complaining. Reverts really *are* just patches, Greg is 100% right, and you are simply wrong. And the revert is now apparently in John's tree, and will make it to David and then me shortly. It will get reverted in stable too once that happens. In the meantime, your complaints are to Greg only shows that you don't understand why the rules exist, and the fact that you *continue* to complain just makes you look stupid. Linus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20120411231102.GA6404@kroah.com> <20120412002927.GA23167@kroah.com> <20120412011313.GA23764@kroah.com> <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:05:46 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Greg KH , Sergio Correia , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-wireless Mailing List , Sujith Manoharan , "ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org" , "John W. Linville" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> A revert is the same as a patch. �It needs to be in Linus's tree before >> I can add it to the stable releases. > > Right, because otherwise people's systems would actually work. There are rules for a damn good reason. The rule for -stable is that the changes *have* to be in upstream, for a very simple reason: otherwise bugs get re-introduced. If -stable starts revertign things that aren't reverted up-stream, what do you think happens to the *next* kernel version? We have those -stable rules for a very good reason - we used to not have them, and the above "oops, we fixed it in stable, but the fix never made it upstream" happened *all*the*time*. I don't think you realize how well kernel development has worked over the last few years. And the stable rules are part of it. So stop complaining. Reverts really *are* just patches, Greg is 100% right, and you are simply wrong. And the revert is now apparently in John's tree, and will make it to David and then me shortly. It will get reverted in stable too once that happens. In the meantime, your complaints are to Greg only shows that you don't understand why the rules exist, and the fact that you *continue* to complain just makes you look stupid. Linus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:05:46 -0700 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review In-Reply-To: References: <20120411231102.GA6404@kroah.com> <20120412002927.GA23167@kroah.com> <20120412011313.GA23764@kroah.com> <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> >> A revert is the same as a patch. ?It needs to be in Linus's tree before >> I can add it to the stable releases. > > Right, because otherwise people's systems would actually work. There are rules for a damn good reason. The rule for -stable is that the changes *have* to be in upstream, for a very simple reason: otherwise bugs get re-introduced. If -stable starts revertign things that aren't reverted up-stream, what do you think happens to the *next* kernel version? We have those -stable rules for a very good reason - we used to not have them, and the above "oops, we fixed it in stable, but the fix never made it upstream" happened *all*the*time*. I don't think you realize how well kernel development has worked over the last few years. And the stable rules are part of it. So stop complaining. Reverts really *are* just patches, Greg is 100% right, and you are simply wrong. And the revert is now apparently in John's tree, and will make it to David and then me shortly. It will get reverted in stable too once that happens. In the meantime, your complaints are to Greg only shows that you don't understand why the rules exist, and the fact that you *continue* to complain just makes you look stupid. Linus