On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:42:30PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >On Mon 2018-04-16 16:39:20, Sasha Levin wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:28:50PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >> > >> >> >> Is there a reason not to take LED fixes if they fix a bug and don't >> >> >> cause a regression? Sure, we can draw some arbitrary line, maybe >> >> >> designate some subsystems that are more "important" than others, but >> >> >> what's the point? >> >> > >> >> >There's a tradeoff. >> >> > >> >> >You want to fix serious bugs in stable, and you really don't want >> >> >regressions in stable. And ... stable not having 1000s of patches >> >> >would be nice, too. >> >> >> >> I don't think we should use a number cap here, but rather look at the >> >> regression rate: how many patches broke something? >> >> >> >> Since the rate we're seeing now with AUTOSEL is similar to what we were >> >> seeing before AUTOSEL, what's the problem it's causing? >> > >> >Regression rate should not be the only criteria. >> > >> >More patches mean bigger chance customer's patches will have a >> >conflict with something in -stable, for example. >> >> Out of tree patches can't be a consideration here. There are no >> guarantees for out of tree code, ever. > >Out of tree code is not consideration for mainline, agreed. Stable >should be different. This is a discussion we could have with in right forum, but FYI stable doesn't even guarantee KABI compatibility between minor versions at this point.