On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:32:15AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: >Hi! > >> >- It must be obviously correct and tested. >> > >> >If it introduces new bug, it is not correct, and certainly not >> >obviously correct. >> >> As you might have noticed, we don't strictly follow the rules. > >Yes, I noticed. And what I'm saying is that perhaps you should follow >the rules more strictly. Again, this was stated many times by Greg and others, the rules are not there to be strictly followed. >> Take a look at the whole PTI story as an example. It's way more than 100 >> lines, it's not obviously corrent, it fixed more than 1 thing, and so >> on, and yet it went in -stable! >> >> Would you argue we shouldn't have backported PTI to -stable? > >Actually, I was surprised with PTI going to stable. That was clearly >against the rules. Maybe the security bug was ugly enough to warrant >that. > >But please don't use it as an argument for applying any random >patches... How about this: if a -stable maintainer has concerns with how I follow the -stable rules, he's more than welcome to reject my patches. Sounds like a plan?
