Den 16-04-2018 kl. 19:19, skrev Sasha Levin:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:12:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:02:03 +0000
Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One of the things Greg is pushing strongly for is "bug compatibility":
we want the kernel to behave the same way between mainline and stable.
If the code is broken, it should be broken in the same way.
Wait! What does that mean? What's the purpose of stable if it is as
broken as mainline?
This just means that if there is a fix that went in mainline, and the
fix is broken somehow, we'd rather take the broken fix than not.
In this scenario, *something* will be broken, it's just a matter of
what. We'd rather have the same thing broken between mainline and
stable.
Yeah, but _intentionally_ breaking existing setups to stay "bug
compatible" _is_ a _regression_ you _really_ _dont_ want in a stable
supported distro. Because end-users dont care about upstream breaking
stuff... its the distro that takes the heat for that...
Something "already broken" is not a regression...
As distro maintainer that means one now have to review _every_ patch
that carries "AUTOSEL", follow all the mail threads that comes up about
it, then track if it landed in -stable queue, and read every response
and possible objection to all patches in the -stable queue a second time
around... then check if it still got included in final stable point
relase and then either revert them in distro kernel or go track down all
the follow-up fixes needed...
Just to avoid being "bug compatible with master"
--
Thomas
