Hi! > > > > I believe that -stable would be more useful without AUTOSEL process. > > > > > > There has to be a way to ensure that security fixes that weren't properly tagged > > > make it to stable anyway. So, AUTOSEL is necessary, at least in some form. I > > > think that debating *whether it should exist* is a distraction from what's > > > actually important, which is that the current AUTOSEL process has some specific > > > problems, and these specific problems need to be fixed... > > > > I agree with you, that we need autosel and we also need autosel to > > be better. I actually see Pavel's mail as a datapoint (or "anecdote", > > if you will) in support of that; the autosel process currently works > > so badly that a long-time contributor thinks it's worse than nothing. > > > > Sasha, what do you need to help you make this better? > > One would probably need to define "better" and "so badly". As a user > of -stable kernels, I consider that they've got much better over the Well, we have Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst . If we wanted to define "better", we should start documenting what the real rules are for the patches in the stable tree. I agree that -stable works quite well, but the real rules are far away from what is documented. I don't think AUTOSEL works well. I believe we should require positive reply from patch author on relevant maintainer before merging such patch to -stable. Best regards, Pavel -- People of Russia, stop Putin before his war on Ukraine escalates.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
