Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review

[Steven Rostedt]

On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 15:35 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

> So the problem is that maintainers are lazy.  They don't want to go
> back for bug fixes that have "proven" themselves, and even if they
> aren't critical bug fixes, they are things which a distro maintainer
> or a stable kernel user might want (and sometimes stable uers are
> uppity enough to expect subsystem maintainers to do this back
> porting).  So subsystem maintainers then react by marking submits for
> stable even though they really should soak for a release or two before
> submitting them, since by marking them as submit, the commit gets
> pushed to stable automatically --- albeit early.

Actually, this is a very good point. There were one or two stable
patches I had pushed to linux-next that I wasn't too comfortable about.
If the fix goes back to older trees, I rather have them stirring in
linux-next and push it in the next merge window instead of pushing it to
Linus and have it go to stable immediately.

Unless its a obvious fix, I tend to take about a month from the time I
get a stable fix to the time I push it out. Making sure the stable fix
doesn't introduce new bugs.

-- Steve


--
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/