From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:41427 "EHLO mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754504Ab2DMK3r convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Apr 2012 06:29:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120413105746.10ffb120@stein> References: <20120411231102.GA6404@kroah.com> <20120412002927.GA23167@kroah.com> <20120412011313.GA23764@kroah.com> <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> <20120413105746.10ffb120@stein> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:29:46 +0300 Message-ID: (sfid-20120413_122952_214820_0F330435) Subject: Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review From: Felipe Contreras To: Stefan Richter Cc: Adrian Chadd , 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=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Stefan Richter wrote: > On Apr 12 Felipe Contreras wrote: >> But this is exactly the opposite; the patch that broke things is in >> the 'release branch' (3.3.1); it's not in upstream (3.3). Sure, it's >> also on a later upstream, which is also broken. >            ^^^^^ > No, upstream /earlier/ than 3.3.1 contains the defect. Time is not relevant for the point being made, but fine: But this is exactly the opposite; the patch that broke things is in the 'release branch' (3.3.1); it's not in the upstream release from where stable began (3.3). Sure, it's also on upstream, which is also broken. > Furthermore, consider this:  You as user of the 3.3.y series are using a > temporary, dead-end side branch.  Its maintenance will stop at some point, > and you will be left looking for a different, maintained series to migrate > to.  You will be most interested in that series /not/ containing any > regressions that you suffered already through the 3.3.y lifetime. Of course, I will be interested in that, although most likely I would be switching to another stable release (v3.4.1), not the upstream release (v3.4), and most distros would do the same. Even in the unlikely event that v3.4 is broken, most likely v3.4.1 would contain the fix. But I'm also interested in v3.3.2 working. So you are saying that: a) v3.3.1 (bad), v3.3.2 (bad), v3.4 (good) b) v3.3.1 (bad), v3.3.2 (good), v3.4 (bad) c) v3.3.1 (bad), v3.3.2 (good), v3.4 (good) b) is clearly better than a). Well, I don't see how; both situations have the same number of releases broken, plus b) is very unlikely anyway and we would end up with c). Plus, in all situation v3.4.1 would most likely contain the fix anyway. > The rule is there to protect you, as a user of the stable series, from > repeated regressions. So in order to avoid b), you would rather go into a), than c)? Sorry, I most definitely don't *need* that "protection". I guess I should avoid the "stable" series then. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:29:46 +0300 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review In-Reply-To: <20120413105746.10ffb120@stein> References: <20120411231102.GA6404@kroah.com> <20120412002927.GA23167@kroah.com> <20120412011313.GA23764@kroah.com> <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> <20120413105746.10ffb120@stein> 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 Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Stefan Richter wrote: > On Apr 12 Felipe Contreras wrote: >> But this is exactly the opposite; the patch that broke things is in >> the 'release branch' (3.3.1); it's not in upstream (3.3). Sure, it's >> also on a later upstream, which is also broken. > ? ? ? ? ? ?^^^^^ > No, upstream /earlier/ than 3.3.1 contains the defect. Time is not relevant for the point being made, but fine: But this is exactly the opposite; the patch that broke things is in the 'release branch' (3.3.1); it's not in the upstream release from where stable began (3.3). Sure, it's also on upstream, which is also broken. > Furthermore, consider this: ?You as user of the 3.3.y series are using a > temporary, dead-end side branch. ?Its maintenance will stop at some point, > and you will be left looking for a different, maintained series to migrate > to. ?You will be most interested in that series /not/ containing any > regressions that you suffered already through the 3.3.y lifetime. Of course, I will be interested in that, although most likely I would be switching to another stable release (v3.4.1), not the upstream release (v3.4), and most distros would do the same. Even in the unlikely event that v3.4 is broken, most likely v3.4.1 would contain the fix. But I'm also interested in v3.3.2 working. So you are saying that: a) v3.3.1 (bad), v3.3.2 (bad), v3.4 (good) b) v3.3.1 (bad), v3.3.2 (good), v3.4 (bad) c) v3.3.1 (bad), v3.3.2 (good), v3.4 (good) b) is clearly better than a). Well, I don't see how; both situations have the same number of releases broken, plus b) is very unlikely anyway and we would end up with c). Plus, in all situation v3.4.1 would most likely contain the fix anyway. > The rule is there to protect you, as a user of the stable series, from > repeated regressions. So in order to avoid b), you would rather go into a), than c)? Sorry, I most definitely don't *need* that "protection". I guess I should avoid the "stable" series then. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras