On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:39:53PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >On Mon 2018-04-16 16:28:00, Sasha Levin wrote: >> 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. > >Well, yes, testing is required when moving from 4.14 to 4.15. But >testing should not be required when moving from 4.14.5 to 4.14.6. You always have to test, even without the AUTOSEL stuff. The rejection rate was 2% even before AUTOSEL, so there was always a chance of regression when upgrading minor stable versions. >> >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. > >So you take everything and put it into stable? I don't think that's a >solution. I don't think I ever said that I want to put *everything* >If you are worried about people not putting enough "Stable: " tags in >their commits, perhaps you can write them emails "hey, I think this >should go to stable, do you agree"? You should get people marking >their commits themselves pretty quickly... Greg has been doing this for years, ask him how that worked out for him.