Firstly, let me apologise: my previous email was too harsh and too assertiveabout things that were really more uncertain and unclear. On 14/04/2020 21:57, Sasha Levin wrote: > I've pointed out that almost 50% of commits tagged for stable do not > have a fixes tag, and yet they are fixes. You really deduce things based > on coin flip probability? Yes, but far less than 50% of commits *not* tagged for stable have a fixes tag. It's not about hard-and-fast Aristotelian "deductions", like "this doesn't have Fixes:, therefore it is not a stable candidate", it's about probabilistic "induction". > "it does increase the amount of countervailing evidence needed to > conclude a commit is a fix" - Please explain this argument given the > above. Are you familiar with Bayesian statistics? If not, I'd suggest reading something like http://yudkowsky.net/rational/bayes/ which explains it. There's a big difference between a coin flip and a _correlated_ coin flip. > This is great, but the kernel is more than just net/. Note that I also > do not look at net/ itself, but rather drivers/net/ as those end up with > a bunch of missed fixes. drivers/net/ goes through the same DaveM net/net-next trees, with the same rules. >> To be honest, that this needs to be explained to you does not inspire >> confidence in the quality of your autoselection process... > > Nothing like a personal attack or two to try and make a point? It wasn't meant as a personal attack, more as an "it's worrying that this is not known to the people doing the stable selection". But I did agonise over whether to say that and now wish I hadn't; sorry. (I'm not exactly my best self right now, what with all the lockdown cabin fever.) -ed
