On Sun 2018-07-15 10:54:03, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 07:38:12PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > The way I see it, if a commit can get one or two tested-by, it's a good
> > > > alternative to a week in -next.
> > >
>
> Pavel, I "love" how you fail to point out that
On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 10:54:03AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> Pavel, I "love" how you fail to point out that you are responding to a 2
> month old thread :(
And apologies for releasing some ancient messages that were caught in
the ksummit-discuss's moderation queue. I hadn't been paying
attention to
On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 07:38:12PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > The way I see it, if a commit can get one or two tested-by, it's a good
> > > alternative to a week in -next.
> >
Pavel, I "love" how you fail to point out that you are responding to a 2
month old thread :(
And that thr
Hi!
> > The way I see it, if a commit can get one or two tested-by, it's a good
> > alternative to a week in -next.
>
> Agreed. Even their own actually. And I'm not kidding. Those who run large
> amounts of tests on certain patches could really mention is in tested-by,
> as opposed to the most co
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 10:00 PM, Sasha Levin
wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 03:44:50PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>>On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:38:21PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> - A merge window commit spent 50% more days, on average, in -next than a
>>> -rc
>>>commit.
>>
>>So it *u
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 10:41:56PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Between v4.17-rc1 and v4.17-rc3, there are 660 non-merge commits, of which
> - 245 carry a Fixes tag,
> - 196 carry a CC stable,
> - 395 contain the string "fix".
> (non-mutually exclusive)
BTW, what about situations when
Hi Sasha,
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Sasha Levin
wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 05:32:37PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Sasha Levin
>> wrote:
>>> Working on AUTOSEL, it became even more obvious to me how difficult it is
>>> for a
>>> patch to get a pr
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 07:42:33PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
> I'm not advocating to keep bugs in. If there is a fix, but the developer
> can't indicate that proper testing was done on the fix we should revert
> the new feature rather than merge the untested fix in.
If you're exclusively talking a
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 05:32:37PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>Hi Sasha,
>
>On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Sasha Levin
> wrote:
>> Working on AUTOSEL, it became even more obvious to me how difficult it is
>> for a
>> patch to get a proper review. Maintainers found it difficult to keep up wi
On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 06:30:17AM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 10:02:30PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:54:48PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>> >Post -rc3 or -rc4, in my opinion bug fixes should wait until the next
>> >merge window before they ge
Hi Sasha,
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Sasha Levin
wrote:
> Working on AUTOSEL, it became even more obvious to me how difficult it is for
> a
> patch to get a proper review. Maintainers found it difficult to keep up with
> the upstream work for their subsystem, and reviewing additional -stabl
Hi Sasha,
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Sasha Levin
wrote:
> Working on AUTOSEL, it became even more obvious to me how difficult it is for
> a
> patch to get a proper review. Maintainers found it difficult to keep up with
> the upstream work for their subsystem, and reviewing additional -stabl
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 10:02:30PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:54:48PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> >Post -rc3 or -rc4, in my opinion bug fixes should wait until the next
> >merge window before they get merged at all. (And certainly features
> >bugs should be Right O
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:54:48PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 08:00:21PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>
>> Yes, linux-next users want it fixed *now* and I completely agree it
>> should be done that way, but the fix should not be immediately pushed to
>> Linus as well.
>
>
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 08:00:21PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
> Yes, linux-next users want it fixed *now* and I completely agree it
> should be done that way, but the fix should not be immediately pushed to
> Linus as well.
I should have linux-head/linux-rc said testers, sorry. The fact that
we
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 10:33:25PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 08:00:21PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> What's worse is that that commit is tagged for stable, which means
>> that (given Greg's schedule) it may find it's way to -stable users
>> even before some -next users/bo
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 08:00:21PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
> What's worse is that that commit is tagged for stable, which means
> that (given Greg's schedule) it may find it's way to -stable users
> even before some -next users/bots had a chance to test it out.
But it's a difficult trade-off. I
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 03:44:50PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:38:21PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> - A merge window commit spent 50% more days, on average, in -next than a -rc
>>commit.
>
>So it *used* to be the case that after the merge window, I would queue
>u
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:38:21PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
> - A merge window commit spent 50% more days, on average, in -next than a -rc
>commit.
So it *used* to be the case that after the merge window, I would queue
up bug fixes for the next merge window. Greg K-H pushed for me to
send t
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 06:50:51PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:19:35PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 09:09:18PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>> >Hi Sasha,
>> >
>> >On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 05:58:30PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> >> - For some reason
On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:19:35PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 09:09:18PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> >Hi Sasha,
> >
> >On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 05:58:30PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
> >> - For some reason, the odds of a -rc commit to be targetted for -stable is
> >> over
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 09:12:08PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Sasha Levin wrote:
>
>> Working on AUTOSEL, it became even more obvious to me how difficult it is
>> for a patch to get a proper review. Maintainers found it difficult to keep
>> up with the upstream work for
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 09:09:18PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>Hi Sasha,
>
>On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 05:58:30PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> - For some reason, the odds of a -rc commit to be targetted for -stable is
>> over 20%, while for merge window commits it's about 3%. I can't quite
>> expl
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Working on AUTOSEL, it became even more obvious to me how difficult it is for
> a patch to get a proper review. Maintainers found it difficult to keep up
> with the upstream work for their subsystem, and reviewing additional -stable
> patches put even
Hi Sasha,
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 05:58:30PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
> - For some reason, the odds of a -rc commit to be targetted for -stable is
> over 20%, while for merge window commits it's about 3%. I can't quite
> explain why that happens, but this would suggest that -rc commits end up
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 05:58:30PM +, Sasha Levin wrote:
> Working on AUTOSEL, it became even more obvious to me how difficult it is for
> a patch to get a proper review. Maintainers found it difficult to keep up
> with the upstream work for their subsystem, and reviewing additional -stable
26 matches
Mail list logo
