On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 19:47 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 02:40 +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:27 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > The solution, to me, looks simple: Let's co-opt a process we already
> > > know how to do: mailing list review
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 02:40 +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:27 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The solution, to me, looks simple: Let's co-opt a process we already
> > know how to do: mailing list review and tree handling. So the proposal
> > is simple:
> >
> >
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:27 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> Before the "3.10.1-stable review" thread degenerated into a disagreement
> about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
> which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
>
> The problem, as Jiří
On 2013/7/23 5:24, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> I review what I can, but recently have often missed the 2 day review
>> period.
>>
>> Review from the authors and maintainers is probably more valuable than
>> that from generalists on the stable list.
>
>>From point of subsystem developers view, the
> I review what I can, but recently have often missed the 2 day review
> period.
>
> Review from the authors and maintainers is probably more valuable than
> that from generalists on the stable list.
>From point of subsystem developers view, the problem is there are too many
stable branches. I
I review what I can, but recently have often missed the 2 day review
period.
Review from the authors and maintainers is probably more valuable than
that from generalists on the stable list.
From point of subsystem developers view, the problem is there are too many
stable branches. I can't
On 2013/7/23 5:24, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
I review what I can, but recently have often missed the 2 day review
period.
Review from the authors and maintainers is probably more valuable than
that from generalists on the stable list.
From point of subsystem developers view, the problem is
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:27 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
Before the 3.10.1-stable review thread degenerated into a disagreement
about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
The problem, as Jiří Kosina put
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 02:40 +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:27 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
The solution, to me, looks simple: Let's co-opt a process we already
know how to do: mailing list review and tree handling. So the proposal
is simple:
1. Drop the
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 19:47 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 02:40 +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:27 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
The solution, to me, looks simple: Let's co-opt a process we already
know how to do: mailing list review and tree
On Sat, 2013-07-20 at 23:11 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 02:27:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Before the "3.10.1-stable review" thread degenerated into a
> > disagreement
> > about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
> > which, I think, bear
On 07/15/2013 02:27:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
Before the "3.10.1-stable review" thread degenerated into a
disagreement
about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
The problem, as Jiří Kosina put is
On 07/15/2013 04:09:53 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 16:56 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> It may not be efficient for maintainers, but as maintainers we
should
> spend a bit more time on stable releases.
The MAINTAINERS file specifies a difference between a
section that's
On 07/15/2013 04:09:53 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 16:56 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
It may not be efficient for maintainers, but as maintainers we
should
spend a bit more time on stable releases.
The MAINTAINERS file specifies a difference between a
section that's
On 07/15/2013 02:27:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
Before the 3.10.1-stable review thread degenerated into a
disagreement
about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
The problem, as Jiří Kosina put is
On Sat, 2013-07-20 at 23:11 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
On 07/15/2013 02:27:56 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
Before the 3.10.1-stable review thread degenerated into a
disagreement
about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
which, I think, bear consideration and which
"John W. Linville" writes:
> Is having a flood of fixes in x.y.1 any worse than having to got to an
> -rc8 or an -rc9?
I think it's better to send less fixes to -rc8 or -rc9 and focus more on
testing. That way there should be less regressions in later stages of
-rc releases and especially in
John W. Linville linvi...@tuxdriver.com writes:
Is having a flood of fixes in x.y.1 any worse than having to got to an
-rc8 or an -rc9?
I think it's better to send less fixes to -rc8 or -rc9 and focus more on
testing. That way there should be less regressions in later stages of
-rc releases
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:43:36AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:20 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > I think the real stable issue that _everyone_ keeps ignoring, is my
> > original complaint, in that people are using the -rc1 merge window to
> > get fixes in they should
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:43:36AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:20 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
I think the real stable issue that _everyone_ keeps ignoring, is my
original complaint, in that people are using the -rc1 merge window to
get fixes in they should have sent
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 04:53:58AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 09:36 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:11:24AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Anything that's being reviewed on the stable list is
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 09:36 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:11:24AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > > Anything that's being reviewed on the stable list is public. I know
> > > > this is an old argument, but if you point out a fix you
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > But I need, from the distros, specific examples of what they object to.
> > > > So far all I've gotten is one security patch (that was needed), and one
> > > > patch for sysfs that I backported too far in the version numbers (my
> > > > fault.)
> > > >
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:24 -0700, David Lang wrote:
> Just because some crazy person ;-) decides to maintain 2.4 for many years
> doesn't mean that every subsystem maintainer needs to worry about backporting
> patches from 3.11 all the way back to 2.4. The fact that they are as willing
> as
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:46:05AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > > But I need, from the distros, specific examples of what they object to.
> > > So far all I've gotten is one security patch (that was needed), and one
> > > patch for sysfs that I
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:11:24AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > > Anything that's being reviewed on the stable list is public. I know
> > > this is an old argument, but if you point out a fix you *know* has a
> > > security impact then you'll help general
On 13-07-15 08:25 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 05:21 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>>
>>> However, it doesn't seem to happen too often, but it does underscore the
>>> need for a maintainer to be able to *retroactively* NAK a patch for
>>> stable, if it is uncovered that it isn't appropriate
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:43 AM, James Bottomley
wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:20 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:17:32AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
>> > On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 11:46 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> > > But I need, from the distros, specific examples of what they object to.
> > > So far all I've gotten is one security patch (that was needed), and one
> > > patch for sysfs that I backported
On Mon 15-07-13 23:20:58, Greg KH wrote:
> I think the real stable issue that _everyone_ keeps ignoring, is my
> original complaint, in that people are using the -rc1 merge window to
> get fixes in they should have sent to Linus for .0.
>
> I don't see anything you have written so far that will
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:00:29AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:27 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > The problem, as Jiří Kosina put is succinctly is that the distributions
> > are finding stable less useful because it contains to much stuff they'd
> > classify as not
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, James Bottomley wrote:
> > But I need, from the distros, specific examples of what they object to.
> > So far all I've gotten is one security patch (that was needed), and one
> > patch for sysfs that I backported too far in the version numbers (my
> > fault.)
> >
> > Given
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
> > Anything that's being reviewed on the stable list is public. I know
> > this is an old argument, but if you point out a fix you *know* has a
> > security impact then you'll help general distribution maintainers and
> > users a lot more than you help the
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Perhaps the KS topic should be about different stable workflows and what
> the maintainers' options are, rather than about a specific proposal.
> This seems like a good discussion topic.
I agree as well; I believe all the proposals related to -stable
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:20 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:17:32AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > Before the "3.10.1-stable review" thread
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:10:31AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 17:06 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:01:39PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't like this at all, just for the
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:30:01AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Anything that's being reviewed on the stable list is public. I know
> this is an old argument, but if you point out a fix you *know* has a
> security impact then you'll help general distribution maintainers and
> users a lot more
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 01:27:42PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 22:09 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > > How important is the stable releases? Are maintainers willing to do a
> >> > > little more work now
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
I don't like this at all, just for the simple reason that it will push
the majority of the work of stable kernel development on to the
subsystem maintainers, who have enough work to do as it is.
Stable tree stuff should cause almost _no_ extra burden on the
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:17:32AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > Before the "3.10.1-stable review" thread degenerated into a disagreement
> > > about habits of politeness,
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 17:06 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:01:39PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > > I don't like this at all, just for the simple reason that it will push
> > > the majority of the work of stable
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 17:06 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:01:39PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
I don't like this at all, just for the simple reason that it will push
the majority of the work of stable kernel
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:30:01AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
Anything that's being reviewed on the stable list is public. I know
this is an old argument, but if you point out a fix you *know* has a
security impact then you'll help general distribution maintainers and
users a lot more than
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 01:27:42PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 22:09 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
[...]
How important is the stable releases? Are maintainers willing to do a
little more
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
I don't like this at all, just for the simple reason that it will push
the majority of the work of stable kernel development on to the
subsystem maintainers, who have enough work to do as it is.
Stable tree stuff should cause almost _no_ extra burden on the
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:17:32AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
Before the 3.10.1-stable review thread degenerated into a disagreement
about habits of politeness, there were
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:10:31AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 17:06 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:01:39PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
I don't like this at all, just for the simple reason
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:20 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:17:32AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
Before the 3.10.1-stable review thread degenerated into a
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Perhaps the KS topic should be about different stable workflows and what
the maintainers' options are, rather than about a specific proposal.
This seems like a good discussion topic.
I agree as well; I believe all the proposals related to -stable can
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
Anything that's being reviewed on the stable list is public. I know
this is an old argument, but if you point out a fix you *know* has a
security impact then you'll help general distribution maintainers and
users a lot more than you help the black-hats
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, James Bottomley wrote:
But I need, from the distros, specific examples of what they object to.
So far all I've gotten is one security patch (that was needed), and one
patch for sysfs that I backported too far in the version numbers (my
fault.)
Given the huge
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:00:29AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:27 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
The problem, as Jiří Kosina put is succinctly is that the distributions
are finding stable less useful because it contains to much stuff they'd
classify as not stable
On Mon 15-07-13 23:20:58, Greg KH wrote:
I think the real stable issue that _everyone_ keeps ignoring, is my
original complaint, in that people are using the -rc1 merge window to
get fixes in they should have sent to Linus for .0.
I don't see anything you have written so far that will help
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 11:46 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, James Bottomley wrote:
But I need, from the distros, specific examples of what they object to.
So far all I've gotten is one security patch (that was needed), and one
patch for sysfs that I backported too far in
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:43 AM, James Bottomley
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:20 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:17:32AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at
On 13-07-15 08:25 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 07/15/2013 05:21 PM, Greg KH wrote:
However, it doesn't seem to happen too often, but it does underscore the
need for a maintainer to be able to *retroactively* NAK a patch for
stable, if it is uncovered that it isn't appropriate after all.
I
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:11:24AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
Anything that's being reviewed on the stable list is public. I know
this is an old argument, but if you point out a fix you *know* has a
security impact then you'll help general
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:46:05AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, James Bottomley wrote:
But I need, from the distros, specific examples of what they object to.
So far all I've gotten is one security patch (that was needed), and one
patch for sysfs that I backported too
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:24 -0700, David Lang wrote:
Just because some crazy person ;-) decides to maintain 2.4 for many years
doesn't mean that every subsystem maintainer needs to worry about backporting
patches from 3.11 all the way back to 2.4. The fact that they are as willing
as
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
But I need, from the distros, specific examples of what they object to.
So far all I've gotten is one security patch (that was needed), and one
patch for sysfs that I backported too far in the version numbers (my
fault.)
Given the huge
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 09:36 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:11:24AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
Anything that's being reviewed on the stable list is public. I know
this is an old argument, but if you point out a fix you *know* has a
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 04:53:58AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 09:36 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:11:24AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
Anything that's being reviewed on the stable list is public. I know
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Before the "3.10.1-stable review" thread degenerated into a disagreement
> > about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
> > which, I think, bear
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 13:27 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 22:09 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > > How important is the stable releases? Are maintainers willing to do a
> >> > > little more work now to
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 13:27 +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> > I also heard some managers decided their kernel source packages should
> > have all the patches squashed together to make them harder to cherry-
> > pick... could it have been the same company?
>
> Greg loves to tell stories about RH
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 22:09 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [...]
>> > > How important is the stable releases? Are maintainers willing to do a
>> > > little more work now to make sure their subsystems work fine in older
>> > > kernels? This
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 22:09 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
[...]
> > > How important is the stable releases? Are maintainers willing to do a
> > > little more work now to make sure their subsystems work fine in older
> > > kernels? This isn't the same stable as it was 8 years ago.
> >
> > And that
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
[...]
> The second one is almost always due to security issues that were unknown
> to the distro. The announcement of security problems to the distros has
> now been addressed, and since that has changed, I haven't heard any
> problems about this.
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 17:06 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> Maintainers are our most limited resource, I'm getting their "ack" when
> they themselves tag the patch to be backported with the Cc: line.
I find stable maintainers even more limited.
I'm not sure our maintainers are the most limited
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:27 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> Before the "3.10.1-stable review" thread degenerated into a disagreement
> about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
> which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
>
> The problem, as Jiří
On Monday, July 15, 2013 04:08:25 PM Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:01:18PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Perhaps the KS topic should be about different stable workflows and what
> > the maintainers' options are, rather than about a specific proposal.
> > This seems like a good
On 07/15/2013 05:21 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>> However, it doesn't seem to happen too often, but it does underscore the
>> need for a maintainer to be able to *retroactively* NAK a patch for
>> stable, if it is uncovered that it isn't appropriate after all.
>
> I give maintainers 2 different
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 05:13:42PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 04:22 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >
> > I agree, _should_. But again, that is not the point I was trying to make.
> > The keyword is _active_ decision vs. passive acceptance of a stable tag.
> >
> > If the stable tag
On 07/15/2013 04:22 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> I agree, _should_. But again, that is not the point I was trying to make.
> The keyword is _active_ decision vs. passive acceptance of a stable tag.
>
> If the stable tag is not added by the maintainer, it can always be added to
> the stable queue
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:22:16AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > > The solution, to me, looks simple: Let's co-opt a process we already
> > > know how to do: mailing list review and tree handling. So the proposal
> > > is simple:
> > >
> > > 1. Drop
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:01:39PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>
> > I don't like this at all, just for the simple reason that it will push
> > the majority of the work of stable kernel development on to the
> > subsystem maintainers, who have
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:01:18PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Perhaps the KS topic should be about different stable workflows and what
> the maintainers' options are, rather than about a specific proposal.
> This seems like a good discussion topic.
I agree, that sounds good to me.
greg k-h
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> (*) For me personally, the best mode of operation would actually be to
> have for-stable/3.x branches in my git tree, cherry-pick from other
> topic branches once the patches are in Linus' tree, and send you pull
> request for stable
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:38:08PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 03:07 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:04:28PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 13:19 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >>> That seems to be a bit drastic. It is quite useful
On 07/15/2013 03:07 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:04:28PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 13:19 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> That seems to be a bit drastic. It is quite useful to have the tag,
>>> but maybe it should only be added by the maintainer
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013, Greg KH wrote:
> > The solution, to me, looks simple: Let's co-opt a process we already
> > know how to do: mailing list review and tree handling. So the proposal
> > is simple:
> >
> > 1. Drop the cc: stable@ tag: it makes it way too easy to add an ill
> >
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:04:28PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 13:19 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > That seems to be a bit drastic. It is quite useful to have the tag,
> > but maybe it should only be added by the maintainer and not in the initial
> > patch submission.
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 13:19 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> That seems to be a bit drastic. It is quite useful to have the tag,
> but maybe it should only be added by the maintainer and not in the initial
> patch submission. This would ensure that the maintainer(s) made the decision.
> If the
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> I don't like this at all, just for the simple reason that it will push
> the majority of the work of stable kernel development on to the
> subsystem maintainers, who have enough work to do as it is.
>
> Stable tree stuff should cause almost
Perhaps the KS topic should be about different stable workflows and what
the maintainers' options are, rather than about a specific proposal.
This seems like a good discussion topic.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 02:44:22PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > Before the "3.10.1-stable review" thread degenerated into a disagreement
> > about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
> > which, I think, bear
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 04:56:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I'm temporarily maintaining a 3.6 stable release (can't wait till I
> don't have to do that anymore). And I cheat. I use the trees that Greg
> uses, and I still spend days getting it ready.
I've been doing the same for a long time
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> Before the "3.10.1-stable review" thread degenerated into a disagreement
> about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
> which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
>
> The problem, as
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 17:21 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> How many maintainers are really just volunteers?
No idea. Here's a data point.
$ git grep "^S:" MAINTAINERS|sed -r 's/\s+/ /g'|sort|uniq -c|sort -rn
818 MAINTAINERS:S: Maintained
248 MAINTAINERS:S: Supported
49
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:09 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 16:56 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > It may not be efficient for maintainers, but as maintainers we should
> > spend a bit more time on stable releases.
>
> The MAINTAINERS file specifies a difference between a
>
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 16:56 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> It may not be efficient for maintainers, but as maintainers we should
> spend a bit more time on stable releases.
The MAINTAINERS file specifies a difference between a
section that's Maintained vs Supported.
Do please remember there's a
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 21:15 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> One thing I don't particularly like about this is having to resend the
> patches in response to mail; it seems cumbersome to do that rather than
> reply to mail or something. Requiring a positive acknowledgement or
> action seems useful but
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 21:55 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> I disagree with your proposal. All these points are already covered by
> the stable review and the early notification that the greg-bot does when
> the patch is included in the queue. If submitters/maintainers do not read
> these e-mails
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
[ ... ]
>
> The solution, to me, looks simple: Let's co-opt a process we already
> know how to do: mailing list review and tree handling. So the proposal
> is simple:
>
> 1. Drop the cc: stable@ tag: it makes it way too easy
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:27:56PM +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
...
> The solution, to me, looks simple: Let's co-opt a process we already
> know how to do: mailing list review and tree handling. So the proposal
> is simple:
>
> 1. Drop the cc: stable@ tag: it makes it way too easy to add
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:45:17PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Have Greg, or whoever, change his script to not take commits marked for
> stable, but instead, forward the commit to the maintainer. Or as it
> already does today, to everyone on the Cc, and -by: tags. Change the
> script from
Hi Steven,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:45:17PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> How about this as a proposal.
>
> Keep the Cc: stable@ tag as it is today.
>
> Have Greg, or whoever, change his script to not take commits marked for
> stable, but instead, forward the commit to the maintainer. Or as
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:27 +0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> Before the "3.10.1-stable review" thread degenerated into a disagreement
> about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
> which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
Party pooper ;-)
>
> The
Before the "3.10.1-stable review" thread degenerated into a disagreement
about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
The problem, as Jiří Kosina put is succinctly is that the distributions
are finding stable
Before the 3.10.1-stable review thread degenerated into a disagreement
about habits of politeness, there were some solid points being made
which, I think, bear consideration and which may now be lost.
The problem, as Jiří Kosina put is succinctly is that the distributions
are finding stable less
1 - 100 of 136 matches
Mail list logo