On 9/25/22 01:21, Pavel Machek wrote: > To make problem worse, sometimes "too trivial" patch is prerequisite > for some other patch; but there's no marking making it easy to > identify such stuff. > Seems like these prerequisite trivial patches should have been Cc: stable, right? > Basically... stable-kernel-rules.rst "needs some updating", or some > explanation that people can not expect patches in -stable to follow > them. > > # Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the > # "-stable" tree: > # > # - It must be obviously correct and tested. > > Known-bad patches are applied and reverted. Shouldn't kernel test robot catch build failures due to bad patches? > > # - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context. > > Way bigger patches are often seen. > > # - It must fix only one thing. > > If upstream patch fixes 3 things and does 5 cleanups, stable accepts that. > As long as these multi-things constitute as one logical change and requires hundreds of lines, that's OK. > # - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes, > # whitespace cleanups, etc). > > This is not enforced, nor it can be enforced easily. But some people had like to see these trivial fixes go through stable tree (perhaps timing of merging to mainline issues that such fixes miss the intended merge window). Thanks. -- An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
