On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 05:14:38PM +0000, Vivi, Rodrigo wrote:
On Jul 30, 2019, at 2:48 PM, Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rather
than a few weeks later when Greg sends his "FAILED:" mails and gets
ignored because said folks have moved on.
however this could potentially cause extra work and confusion like we can see on this
thread where the developer immediately responded to your email and sent the
backported patch to the stable mailing list.
Maybe it is just because we are used to Greg's failed to apply email or maybe
it was just a matter of education...
I think that there were a few things here that ended up causing
confusion, but I'm not quite sure how to address them.
I think that stable should have a clearer rules as to how backports
should be sent. Right now we weed through mails to stable@ to figure out
what are backport requests, what are upstream patches, and what are just
confused folks.
We have gotten pretty good at this, but still not perfect...
But I wonder if there isn't something that could be improved on the automated
message here. Some message clearly stating:
- No action required at this point
One *could* send a backport at this point. My understanding is that when
Greg sees a failure to apply a commit tagged for stable he'll grep
through his mailbox, hopefully finding the backport as a result of this
bot bugging people.
- you can work to prepare the backport in advance
- don't send it to stable before requested by Greg
Why not? I think it's fine to put it on the mailing list, specially
under the same thread, and let us deal with it after the patch goes
upstream.
--
Thanks,
Sasha
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
