On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 04:49:20PM +0100, Edward Cree wrote: > On 14/04/2020 16:16, Sasha Levin wrote: > > Are you suggesting that a commit without a fixes tag is never a fix? > Because fixes are much more likely than non-fixes to have a Fixes tag, > the absence of a fixes tag is Bayesian evidence that a commit is not > a fix. It's of course not incontrovertible evidence, since (as you > note) some fixes do not have a Fixes tag, but it does increase the > amount of countervailing evidence needed to conclude a commit is a fix. > In this case it looks as if the only such evidence was that the commit > message included the phrase "NULL pointer dereference". > > > Fixes can (and should) come in during a merge window as well. They are > > not put on hold until the -rc releases. > In networking-land, fixes generally go through David's 'net' tree, rather > than 'net-next'; the only times a fix goes to net-next are when > a) the code it's fixing is only in net-next; i.e. it's a fix to a previous > patch from the same merge window. In this case the fix should not be > backported, since the code it's fixing will not appear in stable kernels. > b) the code has changed enough between net and net-next that different > fixes are appropriate for the two trees. In this case, only the fix that > went to 'net' should be backported (since it's the one that's appropriate > for net, it's probably more appropriate for stable trees too); the fix > that went to 'net-next' should not. > Or's original phrasing was that this patch "was pushed to net-next", which > is not quite exactly the same thing as -next vs. -rc (though it's similar > because of David's system of closing net-next for the duration of the > merge window). And this, again, is quite strong Bayesian evidence that > the patch should not be selected for stable. > > To be honest, that this needs to be explained to you does not inspire > confidence in the quality of your autoselection process... It is a little bit harsh to say that. The autoselection process works good enough for everything outside of netdev community. The amount of bugs in those stable@ trees is not such high if you take into account the amount of fixes automatically brought in. I think that all Fedora users are indirectly use those stable@ trees. Thanks
