[Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND] stable kernel stuff and grumpy maintainers
jkosina at suse.cz
Wed Jun 20 19:09:47 UTC 2012
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012, Greg KH 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
> First off, _who_ is going to do this categorization? And how do you
> know it is correct? Usually the original submitter doesn't know this,
> and often times, the maintainer doesn't either (sadly.)
Well, if neither maintainer, nor submitter, nor the original author of the
patch knows what the actual impact of the patch is, I don't think it
qualifies for stable :)
> > - support for new HW (so that we can drop those immediately, even
> > automatically, in certain development phases)
> > - performance improvement
> > - crash fix
> Crashes seem like a security problem to me :)
There are scenarios in which this doesn't hold (crashes triggerable only
by root, very artificial scenarios such as hardware evil on purpose, etc
-- those can usually wait until a certain development stage is overcame;
that is the decision that distros are to make).
> > - security fix
> Good luck trying to figure out what is a "security fix" and what isn't.
> That plays into the whole problem that Linus and I are staying away
> from in trying to categorize things like this.
Yes, I know the discussion with Brad and other security people, and can
actually understand both views.
> > - platform/hw-specific fix
> Why isn't this a crash or security fix?
"Notebook XYZ reports 10 fahrenheits lower fan temperature without this
patch" kind of things.
> Anyway, this is all nice, but really, is it that hard for distros to do
> this already on their own?
Well, it shifts the initial categorization effort from someone who
actually understands the code the most (developer/reviewer/maintainer) to
the distro maintainers.
Yes, they have perform the final judgement anyway, but my whole point is
trying to make this a little bit easier for them.
> They know their needs and where they are in their release cycle better
> than anyone else, so they should be able to determine this.
Absolutely, stable shouldn't care about distro release cycles at all.
More information about the Ksummit-2012-discuss