On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:43:36AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 23:20 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > I think the real stable issue that _everyone_ keeps ignoring, is my > > original complaint, in that people are using the -rc1 merge window to > > get fixes in they should have sent to Linus for .0. > > You mean we delay fixes to the merge window (tagged for stable) because > we can't get them into Linus' tree at -rc5 on? Guilty ... that's > because the friction for getting stuff in rises. It's a big fight to > get something marginal in after -rc5 ... it's easy to silently tag it > for stable (did I mention that I think the tag part enables this > behaviour?). I'll just chime-in here and agree that I have delayed minor fixes, preventing them from being merged during an -rc6 or -rc7 but tagging them for -stable. It has long been 'tradition' (at least in the networking space) that fixes so late in the cycle should tend to be really small (i.e. "one-liners") and/or really, really, important. In other words, they need to avoid potentially delaying a release unless they are absolutely necessary. Fixes merged early in the next release cycle at least have a fighting chance of getting some testing before getting into the hands of the unwashed masses. If they have problems in 3.<previous>.1 then they can still be reverted in -stable, but they can never be removed from the .0 release -- does this matter? I'm not sure. Is having a flood of fixes in x.y.1 any worse than having to got to an -rc8 or an -rc9? John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html