On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 05:52:30PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: >On Tue, 17 Apr 2018, Sasha Levin wrote: > >> How do I get the XFS folks to send their stuff to -stable? (we have >> quite a few customers who use XFS) > >If XFS (or *any* other subsystem) doesn't have enough manpower of upstream >maintainers to deal with stable, we just have to accept that and find an >answer to that. This is exactly what I'm doing. Many subsystems don't have enough manpower to deal with -stable, so I'm trying to help. >If XFS folks claim that they don't have enough mental capacity to >create/verify XFS backports, I totally don't see how any kind of AI would >have. Because creating backports is not all about mental capacity! A lot of time gets wasted on going through the list of commits, backporting each of those commits into every -stable tree we have, building it, running tests, etc. So it's not all about pure mental capacity, but more about the time per-patch it takes to get -stable done. If I can cut down on that, by suggesting a list of commits, doing builds and tests, what's the problem? >If your business relies on XFS (and so does ours, BTW) or any other >subsystem that doesn't have enough manpower to care for stable, the proper >solution (and contribution) would be just bringing more people into the >XFS community. Microsoft's business relies on quite a few kernel subsystems. While we try to bring more people in the kernel (we're hiring!), as you might know it's not easy getting kernel folks. So just "get more people" isn't a good solution. It doesn't scale either. >To put it simply -- I don't think the simple lack of actual human >brainpower can be reasonably resolved in other way than bringing more of >it in. > >Thanks, > >-- >Jiri Kosina >SUSE Labs >
