On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 08:28:37AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > > Oh yes, this is going to be a rough one :) > > > > > Yes, this one looks really bad. Not only build failures, but various architectures > > which do build fine don't even boot (including x86). You might want to have a look > > into my build system to get an idea, though I expect that 0day will keep you busy > > for a while. Let me know when you need specific feedback and/or help with specific > > problems. > > Thanks, I think the new requirement for taking Sasha's patches is that > they at least pass 0-day first before sending them to me... > As I just mentioned in the other thread, I think this is going a bit too far. Browsing through the patches, many of them don't have a stable or Fixes: tag, but just mention "fix" somewhere. It almost looks like many are being applied shotgun-wise, without real idea if the problem solved really applies to the target release. It is quite likely that the upcoming stable release will cause a lot of regressions. This in turn may jeopardize my last two years of work trying to convince the rest of the ChromeOS team to see the benefits of stable release merges. It may put our entire stable release merge strategy at risk. I really would prefer a more conservative approach for stable releases. [ And all that while trying to limit the ability to push bug fixes into mainline. Weird. Makes my head spin. ] Thanks, Guenter
