From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from blackhole.sdinet.de ([176.9.52.58]:50098 "EHLO mail.sdinet.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755582Ab2DLU7Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:59:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:52:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Sven-Haegar Koch To: Greg KH cc: Felipe Contreras , Adrian Chadd , 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" Subject: Re: [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review In-Reply-To: <20120412200759.GB23764@kroah.com> Message-ID: (sfid-20120412_225951_653551_BA48D7A2) References: <20120411231102.GA6404@kroah.com> <20120412002927.GA23167@kroah.com> <20120412011313.GA23764@kroah.com> <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> <20120412200759.GB23764@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="8323328-1516993383-1334263935=:1835" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --8323328-1516993383-1334263935=:1835 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Thu, 12 Apr 2012, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:43:33PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Adrian Chadd wrot= e: > > > On 12 April 2012 09:49, Felipe Contreras = wrote: > > > > > >>> > > >>> A revert is the same as a patch. =A0It 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. > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > What is the git commit id of the patch in 3.3.1 that caused this to > break? This is the first time I have heard that 3.3 worked and 3.3.1 > did not work. Someone needs to tell me these things... Should be db6a6a78d8602964c9dfb1d8ce18daefd92da0a7 in stable/linux-3.3.y c1afdaff90538ef085b756454f12b29575411214 in linux/master c'ya sven-haegar --=20 Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. - Ben F. --8323328-1516993383-1334263935=:1835-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sven-Haegar Koch Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:52:08 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ath9k-devel] [ 00/78] 3.3.2-stable review In-Reply-To: <20120412200759.GB23764@kroah.com> References: <20120411231102.GA6404@kroah.com> <20120412002927.GA23167@kroah.com> <20120412011313.GA23764@kroah.com> <20120412144626.GA14868@kroah.com> <20120412200759.GB23764@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, 12 Apr 2012, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:43:33PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > What is the git commit id of the patch in 3.3.1 that caused this to > break? This is the first time I have heard that 3.3 worked and 3.3.1 > did not work. Someone needs to tell me these things... Should be db6a6a78d8602964c9dfb1d8ce18daefd92da0a7 in stable/linux-3.3.y c1afdaff90538ef085b756454f12b29575411214 in linux/master c'ya sven-haegar -- Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. - Ben F.