On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:35:29AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 09:52:53AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:18:14AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 06:28:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > Alternatively I could just invent a new tag to replace the "Fixes:"
> > > > ("Fixes-no-backport?") to be used on patches which fix a known previous
> > > > commit but which we don't want backported.
> > >
> > > No please, that's not needed, I'll just ignore these types of patches
> > > now, and will go drop these from the queues.
> > >
> > > Sasha, can you also add these to your "do not apply" script as well?
> >
> > Sure, but I don't see how this is viable in the long term. Look at
> > distros that don't follow LTS trees and cherry pick only important
> > fixes, and see how many of those don't have a stable@ tag.
>
> I've been talking to an enterprise distro who chooses not to use the
> LTS releases, and it's mainly because they tried it, and there was too
> many regressions leading to their customers filing problem reports
> which get escalated to their engineers, leading to unhappy customers
> and extra work for their engineers. (And they have numbers to back up
> this assertion; this isn't just a gut feel sort of thing.)
When did they last actually do this? Before or after we started testing
stable releases better?
I have numbers to back up the other side, along with the security
research showing that to ignore these stable releases puts systems at
documented risk.
But enterprise distros really are a small market these days, a rounding
error compared to Android phones, so maybe we just ignore what they do
as it's a very tiny niche market these days? :)
thanks,
greg k-h
