On 10/06/2016 09:22 PM, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:19:50PM -0700, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >> Hi! >> >> On 10/06/2016 08:52 PM, Greg KH wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 06:54:43PM -0700, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: >>>> Hi, Stable! >>>> >>>> As you might be aware of, some companies that maintain linux kernel >>>> drivers have the habit of assigning each driver change a new version >>>> number. >>> And, as you have found out, that's a horrible thing to do for Linux and >>> doesn't work at all :) >>> >>> Just because it works for other slower-moving operating systems, I >>> wouldn't recommend doing it for Linux. >> Yes, I'm fully aware of the difficulties, though I was hoping that I, >> with the help some bright ideas from the list could come up with a >> clever way to make everybody happy. > But who has the problem here really? Not the kernel community or > developers, but rather an odd set of unskilled QA people (your word, not > mine.) > > Why can't they get more "skill"? :) > > thanks, > > greg k-h Well, I would in no way call our QA people unskilled just because they in general don't have the skill to know how to locate a particular, sometimes well-hidden git repo and find out if a certain bug is fixed or not. Not even Einstein knew how to do that ;) But I won't try to argue here. I do think, though, that as long as people believe the easier solution is to version each change they will keep on doing that and unfortunately as a result important patches won't get CC'd stable because that would mess up the versioning. >From your answer I take it there is no interest from the stable maintainers in helping solving this using some kind of mainline hash registering tool. I guess perhaps another option is to locally automate stable / distro git tree scanning. Thanks, Thomas -- 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