On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:43:33PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12 April 2012 09:49, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>> > >>> A revert is the same as a patch. It needs to be in Linus's tree before > >>> I can add it to the stable releases. > >> > >> Right, because otherwise people's systems would actually work. > >> > >> But hey, as I said, following rules is more important, regardless of > >> what the rules are, and why they are there. The rules that actually > >> triggered this issue in v3.3.1, as this is not in v3.3. > >> > >> You could just accept that the patch should have never landed in > >> v3.3.1 in the first place, but it's much easier to arbitrarily keep > >> stacking patches without thinking too much about them. > > > > Greg is doing the right thing here. We face the same deal in FreeBSD - > > people want fixes to go into a release branch first, but if you do > > that you break the development flow - which is "stuff goes into -HEAD > > and is then backported to the release branches." > > > > If you don't do this, you risk having people do (more, all) > > development and testing on a release branch and never test -HEAD (or > > "upstream linux" here). Once you open that particular flood gate, it's > > hard to close. > > But this is exactly the opposite; the patch that broke things is in > the 'release branch' (3.3.1); it's not in upstream (3.3). Sure, it's > also on a later upstream, which is also broken. What is the git commit id of the patch in 3.3.1 that caused this to break? This is the first time I have heard that 3.3 worked and 3.3.1 did not work. Someone needs to tell me these things... greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
