On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:47:24AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >On Mon 2018-04-16 21:18:47, Sasha Levin wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:43:28PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: >> >On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Sasha Levin wrote: >> > >> >> So I think that Linus's claim that users come first applies here as >> >> well. If there's a user that cares about a particular feature being >> >> broken, then we go ahead and fix his bug rather then ignoring him. >> > >> >So one extreme is fixing -stable *iff* users actually do report an issue. >> > >> >The other extreme is backporting everything that potentially looks like a >> >potential fix of "something" (according to some arbitrary metric), >> >pro-actively. >> > >> >The former voilates the "users first" rule, the latter has a very, very >> >high risk of regressions. >> > >> >So this whole debate is about finding a compromise. >> > >> >My gut feeling always was that the statement in >> > >> > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst >> > >> >is very reasonable, but making the process way more "aggresive" when >> >backporting patches is breaking much of its original spirit for me. >> >> I agree that as an enterprise distro taking everything from -stable >> isn't the best idea. Ideally you'd want to be close to the first > >Original purpose of -stable was "to be common base of enterprise >distros" and our documentation still says it is. I guess that the world changes? At this point calling enterprise distros a niche wouldn't be too far from the truth. Furthermore, some enterprise distros (as stated earlier in this thread) don't even follow -stable anymore and cherry pick their own commits. So no, the main driving force behind -stable is not traditional enterprise distributions. >> I think that we can agree that it's impossible to expect every single >> Linux user to go on LKML and complain about a bug he encountered, so the >> rule quickly becomes "It must fix a real bug that can bother >> people". > >I think you are playing dangerous word games. > >> My "aggressiveness" comes from the whole "bother" part: it doesn't have >> to be critical, it doesn't have to cause data corruption, it doesn't >> have to be a security issue. It's enough that the bug actually affects a >> user in a way he didn't expect it to (if a user doesn't have >> expectations, it would fall under the "This could be a problem..." >> exception. > >And it seems documentation says you should be less aggressive and >world tells you they expect to be less aggressive. So maybe that's >what you should do? Who is this "world" you're referring to?
