From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:43257 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751306Ab2DLRY4 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:24:56 -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> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:24:55 -0700 Message-ID: (sfid-20120412_192521_415927_17C1CBA7) Subject: Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review From: Adrian Chadd To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Greg KH , Sergio Correia , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.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 12 April 2012 09:49, 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. > > But hey, as I said, following rules is more important, regardless of > what the rules are, and why they are there. The rules that actually > triggered this issue in v3.3.1, as this is not in v3.3. > > You could just accept that the patch should have never landed in > v3.3.1 in the first place, but it's much easier to arbitrarily keep > stacking patches without thinking too much about them. Greg is doing the right thing here. We face the same deal in FreeBSD - people want fixes to go into a release branch first, but if you do that you break the development flow - which is "stuff goes into -HEAD and is then backported to the release branches." If you don't do this, you risk having people do (more, all) development and testing on a release branch and never test -HEAD (or "upstream linux" here). Once you open that particular flood gate, it's hard to close. We had this problem with Squid. People ran and developed on Squid-2.4. The head version of Squid-2 was stable, but that isn't what people ran in production. They wanted features and bugfixes against Squid-2.2, squid-2.4, and not Squid-2.STABLE (which at the time was Squid-2.6/Sqiud-2.7.) That .. didn't work. Things diverged quite quickly and it got very ugly. So I applaud Greg for sticking to correct stable release engineering here. We over in the BSD world know just how painful that is. :) Adrian 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> Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:24:55 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review From: Adrian Chadd To: Felipe Contreras Cc: Greg KH , Sergio Correia , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.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 12 April 2012 09:49, 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. > > But hey, as I said, following rules is more important, regardless of > what the rules are, and why they are there. The rules that actually > triggered this issue in v3.3.1, as this is not in v3.3. > > You could just accept that the patch should have never landed in > v3.3.1 in the first place, but it's much easier to arbitrarily keep > stacking patches without thinking too much about them. Greg is doing the right thing here. We face the same deal in FreeBSD - people want fixes to go into a release branch first, but if you do that you break the development flow - which is "stuff goes into -HEAD and is then backported to the release branches." If you don't do this, you risk having people do (more, all) development and testing on a release branch and never test -HEAD (or "upstream linux" here). Once you open that particular flood gate, it's hard to close. We had this problem with Squid. People ran and developed on Squid-2.4. The head version of Squid-2 was stable, but that isn't what people ran in production. They wanted features and bugfixes against Squid-2.2, squid-2.4, and not Squid-2.STABLE (which at the time was Squid-2.6/Sqiud-2.7.) That .. didn't work. Things diverged quite quickly and it got very ugly. So I applaud Greg for sticking to correct stable release engineering here. We over in the BSD world know just how painful that is. :) Adrian From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adrian Chadd Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:24:55 -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 12 April 2012 09:49, 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. > > But hey, as I said, following rules is more important, regardless of > what the rules are, and why they are there. The rules that actually > triggered this issue in v3.3.1, as this is not in v3.3. > > You could just accept that the patch should have never landed in > v3.3.1 in the first place, but it's much easier to arbitrarily keep > stacking patches without thinking too much about them. Greg is doing the right thing here. We face the same deal in FreeBSD - people want fixes to go into a release branch first, but if you do that you break the development flow - which is "stuff goes into -HEAD and is then backported to the release branches." If you don't do this, you risk having people do (more, all) development and testing on a release branch and never test -HEAD (or "upstream linux" here). Once you open that particular flood gate, it's hard to close. We had this problem with Squid. People ran and developed on Squid-2.4. The head version of Squid-2 was stable, but that isn't what people ran in production. They wanted features and bugfixes against Squid-2.2, squid-2.4, and not Squid-2.STABLE (which at the time was Squid-2.6/Sqiud-2.7.) That .. didn't work. Things diverged quite quickly and it got very ugly. So I applaud Greg for sticking to correct stable release engineering here. We over in the BSD world know just how painful that is. :) Adrian