Re: Elaboration on "Equivalent fix must already exist in Linus'tree"

[david]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2009, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > - Show quoted text -
> > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:44:40PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > > While extending the documentation for submitting Linux wireless bug
> > > > > reports [1] we note the stable series policy on patches -- that of
> > > > > having an equivalent fix already in Linus' tree. I find this
> > > > > documented in Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt but I'm curious if
> > > > > there is any other resource which documents this or elaborates on this
> > > > > a bit more. I often tell people about this rule or push _really_ hard
> > > > > on testing "upstream" but some people tend to not understand. I think
> > > > > that elaborating a little on this can help and will hopefully create
> > > > > more awareness around the importance of trees like Stephen's
> > > > > linux-next tree.
> > > >
> > > > Just have people google for GregKH's copious messages, telling people a fix
> > > > needs to be upstream before it goes into -stable.
> > > >
> > > > Typically you make things easy by emailing stable@xxxxxxxxxx with a commit
> > > > id.
> > > >
> > > > There are only two exceptions:
> > > > * fix is upstream, but needs to be modified for -stable
> > > > * fix is not needed at all in upstream, but -stable still needs it
> > >
> > > This certainly helps, I'm also looking for good arguments to support
> > > the reasoning behind the policy so that not only will people follow
> > > this to help development but _understand_ it and so that they can
> > > themselves promote things like linux-next and realize why its so
> > > important. Mind you -- upstream for us in wireless for example is not
> > > Linus its John's tree so what we promote is not to get the fix first
> > > into Linus' tree but first into John's tree. Which is obvious to
> > > developers but perhaps not to others.
> >
> > Who are these "people" that you are trying to convince?
>
> OK small silly example is convincing distributions it may be a good
> idea to carry linux-next kernel packages as options to users to
> hopefully down the road reduce the delta between what they carry and
> what is actually upstream.

linux-next is a testing tree for developers, it changes day to day, 
doesn't contain all relavent changes, and is definantly _not_ something 
that distros should be pushing to users.

kernel.org kernels (and _possibly_ rc's) would have value (I'm glad to see 
Ubuntu making this move), but linux-next is not something that should be 
pushed out.

> > If they aren't
> > developers, why would any "others" care about our development
> > proceedures?
>
> Right -- in this case above "others" could be developers but could
> also be distribution guys. Essentially I was looking for arguments to
> push and show why linux-next is the next best thing since sliced bread
> for all those nasty deltas.
>
> Which OK -- maybe they can never disappear (?) but hopefully it can at
> least be reduced in size over time.
>
> > Heck, very few developers even read the Documentation files, I'd never
> > expect an "other" to do that :)
>
> Heh.. Maybe I expect too much of people and things.

I think you are misunderstanding linux-next and how it relates to users 
and distros.

David Lang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/