From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com ([74.125.83.46]:46363 "EHLO mail-ee0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753859Ab2DNTeB (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Apr 2012 15:34:01 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120414155733.GF19802@1wt.eu> References: <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> <20120413105746.10ffb120@stein> <20120413154216.476a02ac@stein> <20120414094137.54a7f213@stein> <20120414155733.GF19802@1wt.eu> Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:33:59 +0300 Message-ID: (sfid-20120414_213427_321480_087FB5D4) Subject: Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review From: Felipe Contreras To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Stefan Richter , 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 Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 06:29:54PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> So, the hypothetical patch that was dropped in the stable review queue >> yesterday has to be fixed in mainline too, just like the hypothetical >> patch that made it to stable and was found problematic today has to be >> fixed in mainline. > > Patches are not always dropped from the stable queue if we know they're > causing issues, sometimes they're left pending in the queue. This is how > Greg is able to ping developers from time to time. That's news to me, but the important point remains; they don't make it into the stable release, correct? Yet, we still expect them to be fixed in mainline, correct? >> Again, what makes a released patch undroppable? > > Being applied, in other words, having a commit ID in the branch. Seriously? That's your reason? Hey, thousands of users out there; the reason why we pushed a patch that is known to be broken in v3.3.x is because it already has a commit ID. If that's your idea of a good reason then I don't see any point in discussing with you any more. No offense intended. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 22:33:59 +0300 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review In-Reply-To: <20120414155733.GF19802@1wt.eu> References: <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> <20120413105746.10ffb120@stein> <20120413154216.476a02ac@stein> <20120414094137.54a7f213@stein> <20120414155733.GF19802@1wt.eu> 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 Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 06:29:54PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> So, the hypothetical patch that was dropped in the stable review queue >> yesterday has to be fixed in mainline too, just like the hypothetical >> patch that made it to stable and was found problematic today has to be >> fixed in mainline. > > Patches are not always dropped from the stable queue if we know they're > causing issues, sometimes they're left pending in the queue. This is how > Greg is able to ping developers from time to time. That's news to me, but the important point remains; they don't make it into the stable release, correct? Yet, we still expect them to be fixed in mainline, correct? >> Again, what makes a released patch undroppable? > > Being applied, in other words, having a commit ID in the branch. Seriously? That's your reason? Hey, thousands of users out there; the reason why we pushed a patch that is known to be broken in v3.3.x is because it already has a commit ID. If that's your idea of a good reason then I don't see any point in discussing with you any more. No offense intended. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras