On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:09:33PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >The root of the concern seems to be around how the stable process >currently works and how auto-selection plays into that. When Greg >sends out the RC, the default model of "if nobody objects, this patch >will get included in the next stable release" works because a human >already identified as that needing to be included. So the review is >looking for a NAK, but that's overriding another human's explicit >decision with reasons. For something that is auto-selected, people >seem concerned that the default should be flipped. Perhaps they'd be >more comfortable if auto-selected packages required a human ACK before >they are included? Josh, I review the autogenerated list of commits, patch by patch, myself, before sending it out. So there is a human involved in the process. Admittingly I'm not perfect and things do slip by once in a while. I always look back and try to improve the process. Although the sample size is small now (~600 commits proposed and merged using this method) I don't belive the error rate is higher than the error rate for "regular" stable tree commits. I'd treat autoselection as a helper tool for the stable tree maintainer rather than a magical way to produce stable commits (we're not going to replace Greg with a robot any time soon). -- Thanks, Sasha _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
