Re: [Ksummit-discuss] bug-introducing patches

[Willy Tarreau]

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 07:33:04AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> They're definitely for bug fixes, but there's a spectrum: obvious bug
> fixes with no side effects are easy to justify.  More complex bug fixes
> run the risk of having side effects which introduce other bugs, so
> could potentially destabilize the -rc process.  In SCSI we tend to look
> at what the user visible effects of the bug are in the post -rc5 region
> and if they're slight or wouldn't be visible to most users, we'll hold
> them over.  If the fix looks complex and we're not sure we caught the
> ramifications, we often add it to the merge window tree with a cc to
> stable and a note saying to wait X weeks before actually adding to the
> stable tree just to make sure no side effects show up with wider
> testing.  So, as with most things, it's a judgment call for the
> maintainer.

For me this is the right, and responsible way to deal with bug fixes.
Self-control is much more efficient than random rejection and favors
a good analysis.

Willy