Re: AUTOSEL process

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > > > I believe that -stable would be more useful without AUTOSEL process.
> > > 
> > > There has to be a way to ensure that security fixes that weren't properly tagged
> > > make it to stable anyway.  So, AUTOSEL is necessary, at least in some form.  I
> > > think that debating *whether it should exist* is a distraction from what's
> > > actually important, which is that the current AUTOSEL process has some specific
> > > problems, and these specific problems need to be fixed...
> > 
> > I agree with you, that we need autosel and we also need autosel to
> > be better.  I actually see Pavel's mail as a datapoint (or "anecdote",
> > if you will) in support of that; the autosel process currently works
> > so badly that a long-time contributor thinks it's worse than nothing.
> > 
> > Sasha, what do you need to help you make this better?
> 
> One would probably need to define "better" and "so badly". As a user
> of -stable kernels, I consider that they've got much better over the

Well, we have Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst . If we
wanted to define "better", we should start documenting what the real
rules are for the patches in the stable tree.

I agree that -stable works quite well, but the real rules are far away
from what is documented.

I don't think AUTOSEL works well. I believe we should require positive
reply from patch author on relevant maintainer before merging such
patch to -stable.

Best regards,
								Pavel
-- 
People of Russia, stop Putin before his war on Ukraine escalates.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature