On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 02:49:00AM +0300, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
> Dear Greg,
>
> First of all, thank you very much for keeping stable maintenance so well.
>
> We (Linux Verification Center of ISPRAS (linuxtesting.org)) are going to
> join a team of regular testers for releases in 5.10 stable branch (and
> other branches later). We are deploying some test automation for that
> and have met an oddity that would to discuss.
>
> Sometimes, like in 5.10.109 release, we have a situation when a
> released version (5.10.109) differs from the release candidate
> (5.10.109-rс1). In this case there was a patch "llc: only change
> llc->dev when bind()succeeds" added to fix a bug in another llc fix.
> Unfortunately, as Pavel noted, this patch does not fix a bug, but
> introduces a new one, because another commit b37a46683739 ("netdevice:
> add the case if dev is NULL") was missed in 5.10 branch.
This happens quite frequently due to issues found in testing. It's not
a new thing.
> The problem will be fixed in 5.10.110, but we still have a couple oddities:
> - we have a release that should not be recommended for use
> - we have a commit message misleading users when says:
>
> Tested-by: Pavel Machek (CIP) <pavel@xxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Fox Chen <foxhlchen@xxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@xxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> but actually nobody tested that version.
>
> There are potential modifications in stable release process that can
> prevent such problems:
>
> (1) to always release rс2 when there are changes in rc1 introduced
>
> (2) to avoid Tested-by: section from release commits in such situations.
>
> Or may be it is overkill and it too complicates maintenance work to be
> worth. What do you think?
I think it's not worth the extra work on my side for this given the
already large workload. What would benifit from this to justify it?
thanks,
greg k-h
