On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 12:04:41PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >On Tue 2018-04-17 16:06:29, Sasha Levin wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 05:52:30PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: >> >On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Sasha Levin wrote: >> > >> >> How do I get the XFS folks to send their stuff to -stable? (we have >> >> quite a few customers who use XFS) >> > >> >If XFS (or *any* other subsystem) doesn't have enough manpower of upstream >> >maintainers to deal with stable, we just have to accept that and find an >> >answer to that. >> >> This is exactly what I'm doing. Many subsystems don't have enough >> manpower to deal with -stable, so I'm trying to help. > >...and the torrent of spams from the AUTOSEL subsystem actually makes >that worse. > >And when you are told particular fix to LEDs is not that important >after all, you start arguing about nuclear power plants (without >really knowing how critical subsystems work). Obviously your knowledge far surpasses mine. >If you want cooperation with maintainers to work, the rules need to be >clear, first. They are documented, so follow them. If you think rules >are wrong, lets talk about changing the rules; but arguing "every bug >is important because someone may be hitting it" is not ok. I'm sorry but you're just unfamiliar with the process. I'd point out that all my AUTOSEL commits go through Greg, who wrote the rules, and accepts my patches. The rules are there as a guideline to allow us to not take certain patches, they're not there as a strict set of rules we must follow at all times.
