On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 22:10 +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:43:09PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 12:11 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > People mark stable patches that way already today with a: > > > Cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # delay for 3.12-rc4 > > > or some such wording. I take those and don't apply them until the noted > > > release happens, so you can do this if needed. > > > > I guess the thing is, are stable patches prone to regressions. Do we > > just do that for patches that we think are too complex and may cause > > some harm. Of course, there's the question about having a clue about > > what patches might cause harm or not. > > We'd probably better switch the tag to be "# now" to imply that we don't > want to delay them, and that by default those merged prior to rc4 are all > postponed. I think this might work. I definitely agree that most fixes aren't worth the risk of allowing into a stable release that quickly, so it's the right default. > I suspect that the switching could be mostly automated this way, > avoiding to add burden to Greg : > > - if commit ID >= -rc4 > move to immediate queue, it's a "critical" fix as per Linus' rules > > - if Cc: stable line has "now" at the end, move to immediate queue as > the maintainer takes this reponsibility ; > > - otherwise move to the next .2 queue. I can't speak for Greg, but that seems reasonably easy to implement. (Which I would have to do, as I was unable to reuse Greg's scripts.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Humans are not rational beings; they are rationalising beings.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part