Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, May 01, 2018 at 04:54:48PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:

> I do think it's about AUTOSEL, because when I'm dealing with a
> regression, I want to get it fixed fast.  Because the alternative is
> the merge-window commit getting reverted.  AUTOSEL seems wants perfect
> patches that it can cherry pick once, as opposed to a case where if the
> user confirms that it fixes the regression, I want to send it to Linus
> quickly.  I do *not* want it to marinate in linux-next for 1-2 weeks.
> I would much rather that *stable* hold off on picking up the patch for
> 1-2 weeks, but get it fixed in Linux HEAD sooner.  If that means that
> the regression fix needs a further clean up, so be it.

We've had issues with the automated testing systems in the past where a
maintainer has had a policy of letting things percoltate for a week
before sending to Linus and there's been a bug that caused a substantial
set of tests to fail to run (generally it's something that had unnoticed
dependencies in -next so wasn't caught there) - we essentially end up
not getting the affected bits of test coverage for that period of time
which is not helpful.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature