On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Sasha Levin wrote: > I agree that as an enterprise distro taking everything from -stable > isn't the best idea. Ideally you'd want to be close to the first > extreme you've mentioned and only take commits if customers are asking > you to do so. > > I think that the rule we're trying to agree upon is the "It must fix > a real bug that bothers people". > > I think that we can agree that it's impossible to expect every single > Linux user to go on LKML and complain about a bug he encountered, so the > rule quickly becomes "It must fix a real bug that can bother people". So is there a reason why stable couldn't become some hybrid-form union of - really critical issues (data corruption, boot issues, severe security issues) taken from bleeding edge upstream - [reviewed] cherry-picks of functional fixes from major distro kernels (based on that very -stable release), as that's apparently what people are hitting in the real world with that particular kernel ? Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs
