On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:50:23PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > In any case, I've been very conservative in _not_ pushing bug fixes to > Linus after -rc3 (unless they are fixing a regression or the bug fix > is super-serious); I'd much rather have them cook in the ext4 tree > where they can get a lot more testing (a full regression test run for > ext4 takes over 24 hours), and for people trying out linux-next. > > Maybe the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of holding back > changes and trying to avoid the risk of introducing regressions; > perhaps this would be a good topic to discuss at the Kernel Summit.
Yes, there does seem to be a certain ebb and flow as to how strict the rules are about what should go into stable, what fixes are "good enough" for a given -rc, how tight those rule are in -rc2 vs in -rc6, etc. If nothing else, a good repetitive flogging and a restatement of the One True Way to handle these things might be worthwhile once again... John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linvi...@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
