[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1373658551.17876.117.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:49:11 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review
On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 15:35 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> So the problem is that maintainers are lazy. They don't want to go
> back for bug fixes that have "proven" themselves, and even if they
> aren't critical bug fixes, they are things which a distro maintainer
> or a stable kernel user might want (and sometimes stable uers are
> uppity enough to expect subsystem maintainers to do this back
> porting). So subsystem maintainers then react by marking submits for
> stable even though they really should soak for a release or two before
> submitting them, since by marking them as submit, the commit gets
> pushed to stable automatically --- albeit early.
Actually, this is a very good point. There were one or two stable
patches I had pushed to linux-next that I wasn't too comfortable about.
If the fix goes back to older trees, I rather have them stirring in
linux-next and push it in the next merge window instead of pushing it to
Linus and have it go to stable immediately.
Unless its a obvious fix, I tend to take about a month from the time I
get a stable fix to the time I push it out. Making sure the stable fix
doesn't introduce new bugs.
-- Steve
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists