Re: stable-kernel-rules was Re: fs/bcachefs/

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi!

> > There seems to be just one rule being observed: "It or an equivalent
> > fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).". Every other rule is
> > broken pretty much all the time.
> > 
> > AUTOSEL is a problem.
> > 
> > Plus there's problem with dependencies -- if a patch A is need for fix
> > B, the rules pretty much go out of the window, huge patches are
> > applied, whitespace fixes are applied, etc.
> > 
> > There are even known-bad patches being applied, and then
> > reverted. Greg explained that it heps his process somehow.
> 
> This seems to be a pretty consistent theme theme - thins are done baesd
> on whatever makes Greg's process easier, not input from the people
> stable ought to be working with. Pretty questionable set of priorities
> if you ask me.

Well, I'd not mind stable process following the documented rules.

But fixing the documentation to match the reality would also be an
improvement, because some people actually read it and expect it to be
followed.

Best regards,
								Pavel
-- 
People of Russia, stop Putin before his war on Ukraine escalates.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Development Newbies]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux