On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:33:14PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > IOWs, if all you're doing is relying on "fixes" tags to determine > what /might/ be needed in a stable kernel.org update, then your > stable backport process is fundamentally broken. You're going to > break things and make stable kernels worse for your users, not > better. Agreed. As someone who has done a fair share of -stable backports for a customer: The backport to the last stable release is fairly easy, as it means picking everything that is not clearly a feature or cleanup, and you're generally still familiar with the code. It still needs quite a lot of QA time. Backports to older long-term stable bases can become much more hairy very quickly. In either case Fixes: tags don't help at all. What helps is having one person doing the backports continiously so that they are in the loop. So when I had a paying customer for the backports it was fairly easy for me as I knew where I left off, need to pick up again and remember the pitfalls of the old stable code. Randomly Ccing stable or someone working from Fixes tags has none of those benefits. And espesically the CC stable is dangerous as there is no QA or detailed review performed. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
