[Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND] stable kernel stuff and grumpy maintainers

James Bottomley James.Bottomley at HansenPartnership.com
Wed Jun 20 09:04:10 UTC 2012


On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 10:58 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Glauber Costa wrote:
> 
> > > Agreed, and I am of course not asking anybody to decide for distros; just
> > > trying to make the decision process easier for them.
> > > 
> > > Even such a minimal categorization of bugs such as
> > > 
> > > - support for new HW (so that we can drop those immediately, even
> > >    automatically, in certain development phases)
> > > - performance improvement
> > 
> > Well, those two hardly goes to -stable anyway, 
> 
> What makes you think so?
> 
> I believe that memory management guys do quite some backporting of memory 
> management performance fixes to stable, for example.

There is a grey area around when a performance improvement also becomes
a bug fix, but I mostly err on the side of saying they aren't unless
there's a huge user impact.

> And also getting support for new device IDs via stable is not an 
> exception, right?

But I don't consider this to be grey: new HW support is an enhancement
and therefore not a stable candidate.

Perhaps what we actually need is a debate about the purpose of stable.
What I thought is that it was for bug fixes only, not enhancements or
new hardware enablement.  I might be wrong, but I've been blocking
updates updates to stable that don't qualify as bug fixes (I get a lot
of our new driver update needs to be in RHEL, so we want to submit it to
stable).

James




More information about the Ksummit-2012-discuss mailing list