On 04/12/20 16:49, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:27:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 01/12/20 00:59, Sasha Levin wrote:
It's quite easy to NAK a patch too, just reply saying "no" and it'll be
dropped (just like this patch was dropped right after your first reply)
so the burden on maintainers is minimal.
The maintainers are _already_ marking patches with "Cc: stable". That
They're not, though. Some forget, some subsystems don't mark anything,
some don't mark it as it's not stable material when it lands in their
tree but then it turns out to be one if it sits there for too long.
That means some subsystems will be worse as far as stable release
support goes. That's not a problem:
- some subsystems have people paid to do backports to LTS releases when
patches don't apply; others don't, if the patch doesn't apply the bug is
simply not fixed in LTS releases
- some subsystems are worse than others even in "normal" releases :)
(plus backports) is where the burden on maintainers should start and
end. I don't see the need to second guess them.
This is similar to describing our CI infrastructure as "second
guessing": why are we second guessing authors and maintainers who are
obviously doing the right thing by testing their patches and reporting
issues to them?
No, it's not the same. CI helps finding bugs before you have to waste
time spending bisecting regressions across thousands of commits. The
lack of stable tags _can_ certainly be a problem, but it solves itself
sooner or later when people upgrade their kernel.
Are you saying that you have always gotten stable tags right? never
missed a stable tag where one should go?
Of course I did, just like I have introduced bugs. But at least I try
to do my best both at adding stable tags and at not introducing bugs.
Paolo
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
