From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 10:43:05 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: James Bottomley In-Reply-To: <1468024946.2390.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Message-ID: References: <20160709000631.GB8989@io.lakedaemon.net> <1468024946.2390.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, James Bottomley wrote: > In theory the maintainers are best placed to understand what they are, > so a maintainer to stable flow might be the best way of controlling > regressions in stable. That exactly has been my reasoning, yes. > On the other hand, running stable trees is something Greg was supposed > to be offloading from Maintainers, so I suspect a lot of them don't want > the added burden of having to care. I do understand that, but let's face it; our ultimate and primary goal here should be 'making -stable reliably stable', not so much offloading work from maintainers. If maintainers are overwhelmed by extra work needed for stable, "offloading to Greg" doesn't sound like a proper solution to me at all. "Fixing a maintainer workflow for that particular subsystem" (such as extending the group of maintainers) does. > I'm not saying there's a right answer. I am saying I think it's worth > the discussion. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs