On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 06:42:41PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > On Fri, 2017-09-22 at 15:17 -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 05:06:26PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: > > > > > Sure, I get that, but I was already out on PTO on the 30th. What > > > sucks > > > is that it landed right after I was out. But I plan to have the > > > pull > > > request in before EOB today, so the difference between the 20th and > > > today is neglible. Especially since lots of people doing QA > > > testing > > > prefer to take -rc tags, in that case, the difference is non- > > > existent. > > > > My thinking was that people should test -rc, > > Great, with you here... > > > but if they have problems > > they could grab your for-rc branch and check if their issue is > > already > > fixed.. > > They can do this too... > > But if that still doesn't resolve their problem, a quick check of the > mailing list contents isn't out of the question either. In that case, > they would have found the solution to their problem. But, when you get > right down to it, only one person reported it in addition to the > original poster, so either other people saw the original post and > compensated in their own testing, or (the more likely I think), most > people don't start testing -rcs until after -rc2. I don't know about other people, but our testing of -rc starts on -rc1 and we are not waiting for -rc2. From my observe of netdev, they also start to test -rc immediately. Otherwise, what is the point of the week between -rc1 and -rc2? > Which is why I try to set -rc2 as a milestone for several purposes. > For getting in the bulk of the known fixes, but also as a branching > point for for-next. > > -- > Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx> > GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD > Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
