Hello Greg,
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.3.2 release.
> There are 78 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
> let me know.
>
> R
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Sergio Correia wrote:
>> Hello Greg,
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.3.2 release.
>> > There are 78 patches in this seri
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Sergio Correia wrote:
> Hello Greg,
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.3.2 release.
> > There are 78 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
> > to this one.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:03:59AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Sergio Correia wrote:
> >> Hello Greg,
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Greg KH
> >> wrote:
> >> > This is the start of
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Sergio Correia wrote:
>> Hello Greg,
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 3.3.2 release.
>> > There are 78 patches in this seri
On 12.04.2012, Sergio Correia wrote:
> is there any chance for this one to be included in this review cycle?
>
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-wireless/msg87999.html
Thanks for pointing this out! This patch fixes my network problems
which forced me to go back to a previous kernel.
___
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:03:59AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Sergio Correia wrote:
>> >> Hello Greg,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 7
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:32:40PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:03:59AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Greg KH
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 07:59:14PM -0400, Ser
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:32:40PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:03:59AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Greg KH
>> >> wrot
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, regar
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.
>>
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
s
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM, 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.
There are rules for a damn good reason.
The rule for -
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 07:49:34PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Greg KH 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 wor
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 rel
Hello,
Am 12.04.2012 02:29, schrieb Greg KH:
>> is there any chance for this one to be included in this review cycle?
>>
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-wireless/msg87999.html
>
> Have you read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt? Based on that, I
> don't think it can, yet, right?
Hmm,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:57:53PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Am 12.04.2012 02:29, schrieb Greg KH:
>
> >>is there any chance for this one to be included in this review cycle?
> >>
> >>http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-wireless/msg87999.html
> >
> >Have you read Documentation/st
Am 12.04.2012 22:06, schrieb Greg KH:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:57:53PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Am 12.04.2012 02:29, schrieb Greg KH:
>>
is there any chance for this one to be included in this review cycle?
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-wireless/msg8799
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM, 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 actua
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,
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
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:20:20AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> The relevant patch, like the thousands of patches in v3.4-rc*, did not
> exist in v3.3, so if you add one on v3.3.1, and remove it on v3.3.2
> would be *exactly* the same as if you had not added it at all to the
> stable series.
E
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
>
> I could argue in favor of exceptions, but I don't think you realize
> the fact that this change does not affect your tree *at all*. Adding
> and removing a patch in the stable tree is a no-op.
You're a fucking moron.
It's not a no-op a
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:34:59AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> 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 d
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> So just reverting it from stable, *WITHOUT LEARNING THE LESSON*, is
> not a no-op at all, it's a sign of being a f*cking moron.
Btw, the revert is now in my tree (commit 011afa1ed8c4), and marked
for stable. So *now* Greg can revert it fr
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>>
>> I could argue in favor of exceptions, but I don't think you realize
>> the fact that this change does not affect your tree *at all*. Adding
>> and removing a patch in the sta
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
>
> Sure, but removing that patch from the stable tree is not going the
> change that information; we already know the patch is wrong.
.. and we wait until it has been fixed in mainline so that we *know*
that information doesn't get lost.
From: Felipe Contreras
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:04:42 +0300
> Wrong is wrong, before or after the 3.3.1 tag, this patch is not
> 'stable' material, and removing it does not affect upstream at all.
What you don't understand is that bug fixes will get lost if you only
fix them in -stable, it does
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>>
>> Sure, but removing that patch from the stable tree is not going the
>> change that information; we already know the patch is wrong.
>
> .. and we wait until it has been fixed
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:30:21PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> Am 12.04.2012 22:06, schrieb Greg KH:
> >On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:57:53PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote:
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>Am 12.04.2012 02:29, schrieb Greg KH:
> >>
> is there any chance for this one to be included in this
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:12 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Felipe Contreras
> Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:04:42 +0300
>
>> Wrong is wrong, before or after the 3.3.1 tag, this patch is not
>> 'stable' material, and removing it does not affect upstream at all.
>
> What you don't understand is that
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
>>
>> So just reverting it from stable, *WITHOUT LEARNING THE LESSON*, is
>> not a no-op at all, it's a sign of being a f*cking moron.
>
> Btw, the revert is now in my tree (commit 01
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 01:58:10AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:12 AM, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Felipe Contreras
> > Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:04:42 +0300
> >
> >> Wrong is wrong, before or after the 3.3.1 tag, this patch is not
> >> 'stable' material, and remov
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 8:34 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 01:58:10AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:12 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> > From: Felipe Contreras
>> > Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:04:42 +0300
>> >
>> >> Wrong is wrong, before or after the
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Stefan Richter
wrote:
> On Apr 12 Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> 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.
>
On Apr 12 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> 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.
^
No, upstream /earlier/ than 3.3.1 contains the defect.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 9:49 AM, 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.
On Apr 13 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Stefan Richter
> wrote:
> > On Apr 12 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> 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 late
On Apr 13 Stefan Richter wrote:
> there can only be two kinds of regressions in stable:
>
> A) First the regression was introduced into mainline, and accidentally it
> was carried over from there into stable.
>
> B) The regression only happened in stable because a backport from
> ma
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> I guess I should avoid the "stable" series then.
I wish you had understood this much much sooner so that this nonsense
thread could have been avoided.
If you want the very latest fixes then *obviously* you need to use
the most bleeding edge repo. (Linus')
//Peter
_
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Stefan Richter
wrote:
> On Apr 13 Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Stefan Richter
>> wrote:
>> > On Apr 12 Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> But this is exactly the opposite; the patch that broke things is in
>> >> the 'release branch' (3.3
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> I guess I should avoid the "stable" series then.
>
> I wish you had understood this much much sooner so that this nonsense
> thread could have been avoided.
>
> If you want the very latest fixes then *obviously* you
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> If you do not like to wait for Linus and Greg, you simply have to derive
>> an own kernel which additionally contains your preferred fixes.
>
> Yes, because clearly everybody thinks the process is perfect, and
> cr
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Stefan Richter wrote:
>
>>> If you do not like to wait for Linus and Greg, you simply have to derive
>>> an own kernel which additionally contains your preferred fixes.
>>
>> Yes,
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 02:18:33AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Stefan Richter wrote:
> >
> >>> If you do not like to wait for Linus and Greg, you simply have to derive
> >
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:53:22AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> No, I don't want the latest fixes, I want the latest *stable* kernel.
You have it, it's 3.3.2.
> v3.3 is stable, v3.4-rcx are not.
v3.3 *aims to be stable*. That's the big difference. A kernel starts
unstable and converges to so
On Apr 14 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> I already exemplified how they are very different, but here it goes
> again. The patch "drm/i915: Add lock on drm_helper_resume_force_mode"
> was just tagged in 3.3.2, if I had said yesterday "this patch breaks
> things on my machine", then that patch would have
On Apr 14 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 2:05 AM, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> > I don't think Stefan meant the above as tongue-in-cheek, for what it's
> > worth. Another stable kernel with different rules really would be an
> > interesting exercise, and would probably fulfill a ne
* Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Felipe Contreras
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Sure, but removing that patch from the stable tree is not
> >> going the change that information; we already know the
> >> patch is
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Stefan Richter
wrote:
> On Apr 14 Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> I already exemplified how they are very different, but here it goes
>> again. The patch "drm/i915: Add lock on drm_helper_resume_force_mode"
>> was just tagged in 3.3.2, if I had said yesterday "this pat
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Nobody has said it's perfect. Jonathan said it's "close" to perfect. I
> personally think it's the best tradeoff we could find between a perfectly
> stable branch and a perfect mainline. We manage to converge towards the
> best quality in bo
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Stefan Richter
wrote:
> On Apr 14 Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Of course, although the difference with the stable kernel would be
>> very small if the only thing added is an extra rule for acceptance:
>> "It reverts an earlier patch to 'stable'."
>
> It looks like
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 main
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Linus Torvalds
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Felipe Contreras
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sure, but removing that patch from the stable tree is not
>> >> going t
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 06:43:06PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> I understand you use 'stable' as guarantee, and I know it works, but
> do you *need* this guarantee?
>
> And before you go on why you need this guarantee to avoid fixes to be
> lost, this is an *entirely different thing*; we are n
On Apr 14 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Stefan Richter
> wrote:
> > On Apr 14 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> I already exemplified how they are very different, but here it goes
> >> again. The patch "drm/i915: Add lock on drm_helper_resume_force_mode"
> >> was just tagg
On Apr 14 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Stefan Richter
> wrote:
> > On Apr 14 Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
> >> Of course, although the difference with the stable kernel would be
> >> very small if the only thing added is an extra rule for acceptance:
> >> "It reverts a
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Stefan Richter
wrote:
> On Apr 14 Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Stefan Richter
>> wrote:
>> > On Apr 14 Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> I already exemplified how they are very different, but here it goes
>> >> again. The patch "drm/i91
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 stab
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 10:33:59PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> 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 patc
On Apr 14 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Stefan Richter
> wrote:
> > Generally, "commit + push out" makes it undroppable. In case of -stable,
> > commit/ push out/ tag are close and virtually identical.
> >
> > After a change was pushed out, the choice narrows down to
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 12:21 AM, Stefan Richter
wrote:
> On Apr 14 Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Stefan Richter
>> wrote:
>> > Generally, "commit + push out" makes it undroppable. In case of -stable,
>> > commit/ push out/ tag are close and virtually identical.
>>
On Apr 15 Felipe Contreras wrote:
> The question that has not been answered is what makes them different,
It was answered in the grandparent post and in posts before it.
> I'm glad you see it's silly to put bad patches in the stable release
> just so they get properly tracked for mainline, but th
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Stefan Richter
wrote:
> On Apr 15 Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> The question that has not been answered is what makes them different,
>
> It was answered in the grandparent post and in posts before it.
Nope.
>> I'm glad you see it's silly to put bad patches in the s
Look, this is getting ridiculous.
I think you're completely wrapped up in the "git" way of thinking about things.
The patch can't be "dropped". It can't be "reverted". It can't be
"removed". All that Linus can do is apply a reversed patch. Then Greg
can sync up however he does it.
You seem compl
* Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Linus Torvalds
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Felipe Contreras
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Sure, but removing tha
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> You are avoiding the argument you replying to; yesterday a
>> patch was droppable from the stable review queue, but today,
>> after the release, now we *need* it to stay there until it's
>> fixed in the mainline
Felipe,
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 08:15:23PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
(...)
> Why is it that the patch from yesterday doesn't reduce the version
> skew, but the patch from today does? You are not explaining *why*.
Severl of us have explained to you multiple times *why*. Either you're
having a
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
>
> This is not a reason, this is just stating what happens without
> explaining *why*.
>
> Q: What changes when a tag is made?
> A: A tag is made
I'll make one more try at explaining to you, but then I'll just set my
mail reader to ignore
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Linus Torvalds
wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>>
>> This is not a reason, this is just stating what happens without
>> explaining *why*.
>>
>> Q: What changes when a tag is made?
>> A: A tag is made
[...]
> The only thing th
* Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Linus Torvalds
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Felipe Contreras
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> This is not a reason, this is just stating what happens without
> >> explaining *why*.
> >>
> >> Q: What changes when a tag is made?
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 01:12:48AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> I'm not going to argue the semantics of what is a revert, but I am
> going to show the difference between the two situations:
>
> a) v3.0* (good), v3.1* (good), v3.2* (good), v3.3 (good), v3.3.1
> (bad), v3.3.2 (good), v3.4 (bad)
* Willy Tarreau wrote:
> It's not the user's visibility, it's published code. Once code
> is published, you cannot magically fix it without emitting a
> new patch for this code and announcing so that users apply it.
> These patches are called stable releases. Users want a good
> reason to ap
Just one minor correction in this looney email thread:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:53:22AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> v3.3.x on the other hand are *not* stable. They contain patches
> backported from v3.4, but nobody guarantees they will work. There was
> no v3.3.1-rc1, so the first time the
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> Just one minor correction in this looney email thread:
>
> On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:53:22AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> v3.3.x on the other hand are *not* stable. They contain patches
>> backported from v3.4, but nobody guarantees they will
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Felipe Contreras wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Linus Torvalds
>> wrote:
>> > The only thing that matters is "it's been made available to others".
>>
>> Exactly! Now *this* is a reason. [...]
>
> Erm, many people referred t
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:11:05PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > Just one minor correction in this looney email thread:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:53:22AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> v3.3.x on the other hand are *not* stable. T
On 04/16/2012 10:25 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Releasing implies many things. There is this notion called theory of
> mind, which children learn at a very young age, that helps us see the
> world through the eyes of other people. If you think people *must* see
> the word "release" and think *exa
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:11:05PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > Just one minor correction in this looney email thread:
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 01:53:22AM +0300, Felipe Contreras
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:18:13AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:11:05PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Greg KH
> >> wrote:
> >> > Just one minor correction in this looney ema
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:18:13AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:11:05PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Greg KH
>> >> wr
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:18:13AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:11:05PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Greg KH
>> >> wr
Felipe Contreras wrote:
> With more people using Arch Linux and thus the latest "stable"
> release, I'd say we might see an increase in these kinds of issues.
You touch on an important point. Arch has it's own support channels,
and after a few of these kinds of issues perhaps Arch will decide to
p
On 04/16/2012 02:18 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:11:05PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Just one minor correction in this looney email thread:
On Sat,
On 04/16/2012 02:50 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:18:13AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Greg KH
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:11:05PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On 04/16/2012 02:50 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:18:13AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Greg KH
>>> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:11:05PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:44:25AM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> Perhaps the current process will be continue to be OK, but I do
> >> believe a tagged v3.3.1-rc1 would have catched the ath9k issue.
> >
> > How exactly would that have helped here?
>
> More people would have given it a try. No
87 matches
Mail list logo
