On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:20:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 18:06:08 +0200
>Pavel Machek <pa...@ucw.cz> wrote:
>
>> That means you want to ignore not-so-serious bugs, because benefit of
>> fixing them is lower than risk of the regressions. I believe bugs that
>> do not bother anyone should _not_ be fixed in stable.
>>
>> That was case of the LED patch. Yes, the commit fixed bug, but it
>> introduced regressions that were fixed by subsequent patches.
>
>I agree. I would disagree that the patch this thread is on should go to
>stable. What's the point of stable if it introduces regressions by
>backporting bug fixes for non major bugs.

One such reason is that users will then hit the regression when they
upgrade to the next -stable version anyways.

>Every fix I make I consider labeling it for stable. The ones I don't, I
>feel the bug fix is not worth the risk of added regressions.
>
>I worry that people will get lazy and stop marking commits for stable
>(or even thinking about it) because they know that there's a bot that
>will pull it for them. That thought crossed my mind. Why do I want to
>label anything stable if a bot will probably catch it. Then I could
>just wait till the bot posts it before I even think about stable.

People are already "lazy". You are actually an exception for marking your
commits.

Yes, folks will chime in with "sure, I mark my patches too!", but if you
look at the entire committer pool in the kernel you'll see that most
don't bother with this to begin with.

Reply via email to