On 10/5/2017 6:44 AM, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
> On 10/5/2017 3:04 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:22:06PM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
>>> Maybe I wasn't too clear, I didn't intend any of those to go for-rc.
>>> So yep
>>> for-next was the right target.
Ok.
>>> I would have liked to get the fixes into -rc but they were just too
>>> complex
>>> for this late in the game is all I meant.
Understood.
>> IMHO, the number of LOCs shouldn't be the gating factor for -rc, but the
>> severity of fixes yes.
>
> Not the gating factor necessarily, but a factor that has to be be
> weighed against the severity of the bug being fixed. As we get into
> later -rc cycles the bar for risk vs reward gets raised, not that there
> should be a limit of X LOC for -rc whatever it's more of an overall
> assessment of the risk of causing more harm than good.
Exactly. And given the rc stage we are at now, and the complexity of
the fixes, you made the right call.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@xxxxxxxxxx>
GPG Key ID: B826A3330E572FDD
Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature