Hi! > > So I guess we are good, until we are not. It concerns me however that > > this (latent at the time) issue was reported at Wed, 10 Mar 2021 > > 20:19:48 -0800 which is well before the deadline of Fri, 12 Mar 2021 > > 13:23:09 +0000, and yet, the v5.4.105 was announced on Thu, 11 Mar 2021 > > 05:33:31 -0800 (PST) and it went through with that patch nonetheless. > > It's a judgement call on my side as to when to do the release, based on > the testing that has happened, any reports, and my knowledge of what is > in the patches themselves. For this patchset, all of the expected > testers came back with no problems, except for your report. > > And if your report turned out to be real (the fact that it was a > backport of an "old" patch made it much less likely to be real), I can > always instantly revert it and push out a new release quickly for the > tiny subset of those that have problems with this. > > So I took a guess based on all of this and decided it was more important > to get the release out early, so that it can start to make its way to > the huge majority of systems that did report testing worked fine, than > to delay it to wait for your single system report. Because again, if > this turned out to be a real issue, a quick release for any affected > systems would have been trivial to create. You are setting yourself (and testers) a deadline... and then you ignore it. People are not only testing the release, they are also reviewing the patches, and having at least two days for that is useful. You clearly disagree, but in any case you should not mention deadline in the initial if you don't intend to keep them. Thats confusing, and clearly it is not only confusing to me. Best regards, Pavel -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
