On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 02:26:53PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:42:38 +0000 >Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Also note that all of these patches were tagged for stable and actually >> ended up in at least one tree. >> >> This is why I'm basing a lot of my decision making on the rejection rate. >> If the AUTOSEL process does the job well enough as the "regular" >> process did before, why push it back? > >Because I think we are adding too many patches to stable. And >automating it may just make things worse. Your examples above back my >argument more than they refute it. If people can't determine what is >"obviously correct" how is automation going to do any better? I don't understand that statament, it sounds illogical to me. If I were to tell you that I have a crack team of 10 kernel hackers who dig through all mainline commits to find commits that should be backported to stable, and they do it with less mistakes than authors/maintainers make when they tag their own commits, would I get the same level of objection? On the correctness side, I have another effort to improve the quality of testing -stable commits get, but this is somewhat unrelated to the whole automatic selection process.