On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 02:34:07AM -0400, Willy Tarreau wrote: > Hi Sasha, > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 01:54:40PM -0400, Levin, Alexander wrote: > > I've decided to automate the bits I had for tracking stable mailing list > > discussion and wrap it into the git notes interface to make it easy for > > stable maintainers to track discussions related to stable commits. > > I actually think it's a good idea. I already use notes locally when I > know I have to take care of certain commits, or when I want to mark that > I already tested them. I don't know how practical this will be over the > long term but it can definitely help. What's the concern about long term? My view is that if this will encourage reviews in the long term. > > Dave has a very valid point: we don't actually investigate the history and > > correctness for patches that look sane as much as we should. The volume of > > commits is so big that we might miss comments given by reviewers that we > > should consider as well. > > In fact I think that in the ideal case we would propagate fixes from most > recent versions to oldest ones. This normally completely avoids all such > issues. But the reality is different as the older kernels we're maintaining > don't have the same release cycles so it's hard to expect that your 4.1 > fetches from 4.4, then feeds your 3.18 which then feeds Ben's 3.16, then > Greg's 3.14, then Jiri's 3.12, then my 3.10 etc... So the reality is that > we're re-doing some part of the work on our respective sides and checking > in other branches if we find anything relevant. Thus I pick from 3.14, and > check for the equivalent 3.12 patches in my mbox to see if I notice any > particular comment regarding the backport. That obviously doesn't mean it's > riskless, just that the risk is reasonably low. At worst I'll pick a bug > and its fix like I did this time without noticing it. Ideally, if the process is automated enough it could work this way. It also means that we'll need just 1 maintainer rather than 5 :) > My scripts do look for the Fixes tag, indicate whether the patch in question > is in my branch or not, and carry the mainline commit ID so that it's easy > to look for a "Fixes:" in mainline referencing it and grep for it in other > branches. Thus I think that it should integrate nicely with your notes > since I could easily check for each individual patch if there are some > particular notes and for example refuse to merge it to force to read the > notes. > > (...) > > To verify it works, try looking at the original commit that Dave's rant was > > all about and make sure you see the mailing list correspondence: > > > > git log b1438f477934f5a4d5a44df26f3079a7575d5946 > > > > Updating is just a matter of fetching again. I'll make sure to push updates > > on a daily basis. > > I'll definitely give it a try ASAP. If you can add a link to the > discussion thread based on the message ID, it would be really cool! I can look into that. Right now I get the mails from my offlinemap dir, so I'll need to figure out how to do that. -- Thanks, Sasha -- 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