On 12 April 2012 09:49, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> A revert is the same as a patch. It needs to be in Linus's tree before >> I can add it to the stable releases. > > Right, because otherwise people's systems would actually work. > > But hey, as I said, following rules is more important, regardless of > what the rules are, and why they are there. The rules that actually > triggered this issue in v3.3.1, as this is not in v3.3. > > You could just accept that the patch should have never landed in > v3.3.1 in the first place, but it's much easier to arbitrarily keep > stacking patches without thinking too much about them. Greg is doing the right thing here. We face the same deal in FreeBSD - people want fixes to go into a release branch first, but if you do that you break the development flow - which is "stuff goes into -HEAD and is then backported to the release branches." If you don't do this, you risk having people do (more, all) development and testing on a release branch and never test -HEAD (or "upstream linux" here). Once you open that particular flood gate, it's hard to close. We had this problem with Squid. People ran and developed on Squid-2.4. The head version of Squid-2 was stable, but that isn't what people ran in production. They wanted features and bugfixes against Squid-2.2, squid-2.4, and not Squid-2.STABLE (which at the time was Squid-2.6/Sqiud-2.7.) That .. didn't work. Things diverged quite quickly and it got very ugly. So I applaud Greg for sticking to correct stable release engineering here. We over in the BSD world know just how painful that is. :) Adrian _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
