From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C536D37 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 08:32:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AAFE98B for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 08:32:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 10:32:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Jan Kara In-Reply-To: <20180905081658.GB24902@quack2.suse.cz> Message-ID: References: <5c9c41b2-14f9-41cc-ae85-be9721f37c86@redhat.com> <20180904213340.GD16300@sasha-vm> <20180905081658.GB24902@quack2.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Greg KH , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Stable trees and release time List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 5 Sep 2018, Jan Kara wrote: > So I agree that with current amount of patches in stable tree, the > review is cursory at best. However that does not really seem to be > related to the frequency of stable releases (which is what I believe > Laura complains about in this thread) but rather to the amount of > patches going into stable. I think the psychological aspect shouldn't be ignored in this particular case. Maintainers and patch authors being constantly flooded by stable queues would never really get back to reviewing it, as it's always there, more is already in flight, and the previous pile is still unreviewed. If it comes at regular pace though, it's a bit easier to align with it and establish for example "friday afternoon stable review 2 hours" into maintainer's workflow :) But yeah, it's weak and doesn't solve the primary thing, which is just the size of stable itself. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs