Re: [RFC] -stable, how it's going to work.

From: Russell King
Date: Wed Mar 09 2005 - 05:43:23 EST

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 11:24:58AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 10:17 +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > What about the case (as highlighted in previous discussions) that the
> > stable tree needs a simple "dirty" fix, whereas mainline takes the
> > complex "clean" fix?
> that's the exception I talked about a bit later in my mail. It should be
> rare and very deliberate. And in fact once the mainline change ripples
> out into maturity I rather replace the -stable one with that later on,
> even if it's a bit more invasive.

Is that really necessary with a stable tree which may only be around
for about 2 months before the next stable tree is forked (which would
have the mature mainline fix in) ?

There is another point here though, which I think is much more important.
Remember that the original issue which caused the -stable tree to be
created was a concern over the testing that Linus' kernels were getting.
Also, realise that by creating a -stable tree, we haven't increased the
number of testers which Linus' kernels are seeing.

Given that, how can we decide that a complex fix has matured enough
in Linus' kernel to warrant replacing a (proven) fix which users are
perfectly happy with in the corresponding -stable tree?

I thought the -stable tree is targeted towards stability, not towards
"lets replace this change with some other because we as developers think
it's better".

Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux -
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at