On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 02:26:53PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:42:38 +0000
>Sasha Levin <alexander.le...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> Also note that all of these patches were tagged for stable and actually
>> ended up in at least one tree.
>> This is why I'm basing a lot of my decision making on the rejection rate.
>> If the AUTOSEL process does the job well enough as the "regular"
>> process did before, why push it back?
>Because I think we are adding too many patches to stable. And
>automating it may just make things worse. Your examples above back my
>argument more than they refute it. If people can't determine what is
>"obviously correct" how is automation going to do any better?
I don't understand that statament, it sounds illogical to me.
If I were to tell you that I have a crack team of 10 kernel hackers who
dig through all mainline commits to find commits that should be
backported to stable, and they do it with less mistakes than
authors/maintainers make when they tag their own commits, would I get the
same level of objection?
On the correctness side, I have another effort to improve the quality of
testing -stable commits get, but this is somewhat unrelated to the whole
automatic selection process.