[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180503144850.GC23311@1wt.eu>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 16:48:50 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 07:33:04AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> They're definitely for bug fixes, but there's a spectrum: obvious bug
> fixes with no side effects are easy to justify. More complex bug fixes
> run the risk of having side effects which introduce other bugs, so
> could potentially destabilize the -rc process. In SCSI we tend to look
> at what the user visible effects of the bug are in the post -rc5 region
> and if they're slight or wouldn't be visible to most users, we'll hold
> them over. If the fix looks complex and we're not sure we caught the
> ramifications, we often add it to the merge window tree with a cc to
> stable and a note saying to wait X weeks before actually adding to the
> stable tree just to make sure no side effects show up with wider
> testing. So, as with most things, it's a judgment call for the
> maintainer.
For me this is the right, and responsible way to deal with bug fixes.
Self-control is much more efficient than random rejection and favors
a good analysis.
Willy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists