[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130821105459.0b392711@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:54:59 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Cc: Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, lwn@....net,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed stable release changes
On Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:17:25 +0200
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu> wrote:
> This is also what I suspected though I have no data to confirm or deny that.
> If this happens to be the case, maybe then there should be some barrier such
> as :
> - everything merged at -rc4 or before gets backported after the next -rc
> - everything from -rc5 and upper waits for next -rc1 unless tagged urgent ?
No, I think a full -rc cycle would be good. All commits tagged for
stable that appeared in -rc4 (added from -rc3), must wait till -rc5
before it is added to stable. That way we have a week of full exposure
to find problems.
I guess the other question to ask is, how long does it take for a
problem to appear after hitting mainline? If a problem is found in -rc4
before -rc5 comes out, then this would be sufficient. But if the
problem from -rc4 isn't found till -rc6 then that tells us something
too.
We should be using pass data to determine these heuristics. But I don't
have that data, but Greg should.
-- 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