On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:20:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:06:08 +0200 >Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> That means you want to ignore not-so-serious bugs, because benefit of >> fixing them is lower than risk of the regressions. I believe bugs that >> do not bother anyone should _not_ be fixed in stable. >> >> That was case of the LED patch. Yes, the commit fixed bug, but it >> introduced regressions that were fixed by subsequent patches. > >I agree. I would disagree that the patch this thread is on should go to >stable. What's the point of stable if it introduces regressions by >backporting bug fixes for non major bugs. One such reason is that users will then hit the regression when they upgrade to the next -stable version anyways. >Every fix I make I consider labeling it for stable. The ones I don't, I >feel the bug fix is not worth the risk of added regressions. > >I worry that people will get lazy and stop marking commits for stable >(or even thinking about it) because they know that there's a bot that >will pull it for them. That thought crossed my mind. Why do I want to >label anything stable if a bot will probably catch it. Then I could >just wait till the bot posts it before I even think about stable. People are already "lazy". You are actually an exception for marking your commits. Yes, folks will chime in with "sure, I mark my patches too!", but if you look at the entire committer pool in the kernel you'll see that most don't bother with this to begin with.