From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ee0-f46.google.com ([74.125.83.46]:59814 "EHLO mail-ee0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751049Ab2DLVfA convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:35:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120412185622.GB2904@burratino> References: <20120411231102.GA6404@kroah.com> <20120412002927.GA23167@kroah.com> <20120412011313.GA23764@kroah.com> <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> <20120412185622.GB2904@burratino> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:34:59 +0300 Message-ID: (sfid-20120412_233505_927128_615CD711) Subject: Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review From: Felipe Contreras To: Jonathan Nieder 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 Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> But then are you saying that if upstream is broken (3.4-rc2), then >> stable should be broken as well (3.3.1), and remain broken until >> upstream is fixed? I fail to see what would be the point of that. > > No, he's saying that when upstream is broken for the same reason as > stable is, it seems wise to: > >  - report upstream >  - fix your local system >  - fix any systems you are responsible for >  - fix upstream >  - only then fix stable. I'm not sure those steps were followed for this particular patch on v3.3.1, but lets assume they where. Now what happens when: - you realize the fix made matters worst, in fact, so worst that the whole thing is unusable in some systems Presumably we are now in the next round of: - fix upstream But v.3.3.2 is due Friday, which makes it very likely that the fix won't get in. And what did we gain? If you simplify the situation to what you explained above, it seems very reasonable, but that's not the whole picture. -- Felipe Contreras From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Contreras Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 00:34:59 +0300 Subject: [ath9k-devel] [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review In-Reply-To: <20120412185622.GB2904@burratino> References: <20120411231102.GA6404@kroah.com> <20120412002927.GA23167@kroah.com> <20120412011313.GA23764@kroah.com> <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> <20120412185622.GB2904@burratino> 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 9:56 PM, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Felipe Contreras wrote: > >> But then are you saying that if upstream is broken (3.4-rc2), then >> stable should be broken as well (3.3.1), and remain broken until >> upstream is fixed? I fail to see what would be the point of that. > > No, he's saying that when upstream is broken for the same reason as > stable is, it seems wise to: > > ?- report upstream > ?- fix your local system > ?- fix any systems you are responsible for > ?- fix upstream > ?- only then fix stable. I'm not sure those steps were followed for this particular patch on v3.3.1, but lets assume they where. Now what happens when: - you realize the fix made matters worst, in fact, so worst that the whole thing is unusable in some systems Presumably we are now in the next round of: - fix upstream But v.3.3.2 is due Friday, which makes it very likely that the fix won't get in. And what did we gain? If you simplify the situation to what you explained above, it seems very reasonable, but that's not the whole picture. -- Felipe Contreras