From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262481AbVF2IIe (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:08:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262482AbVF2IIe (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:08:34 -0400 Received: from smtp-103-wednesday.nerim.net ([62.4.16.103]:64270 "EHLO kraid.nerim.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262481AbVF2IIT (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jun 2005 04:08:19 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:08:35 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: Andrew Morton , Greg KH , Chris Wright Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, zwane@arm.linux.org.uk, jmforbes@linuxtx.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, torvalds@osdl.org, chuckw@quantumlinux.com, Alan Cox , andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com, James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com Subject: Re: [02/07] [SCSI] qla2xxx: Pull-down scsi-host-addition to follow board initialization. Message-Id: <20050629100835.60dc42f8.khali@linux-fr.org> In-Reply-To: <20050628152037.690c3840.akpm@osdl.org> References: <20050627224651.GI9046@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <20050627225349.GK9046@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <20050628235148.4512d046.khali@linux-fr.org> <20050628152037.690c3840.akpm@osdl.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Andrew, > If the person who originally raised that patch put unrelated things > into a single patch then that's where the problem started. Agreed. > Bear in mind that there is also risk in only part-applying a patch. If applying only a part of a given patch doesn't sound safe, then I would question the supposed obvious correctness of this patch in the first place. Some times ago, Alan stated he liked -stable because "its small enough that most of the add on patches people use aren't breaking against it" [1]. I found this a sound statement, but if we now accept non-minimum changes, this won't be true any longer (or at least this will tend to become less true). > > This aint -stable material. > > But it's obviously safe. Let's use our brains on these patches and > not become beholden to doctrine, OK? Why did we write down and discuss rules for -stable in the first place then [2]? Of the 9 rules Greg first listed as conditions for a patch to be accepted in -stable, this patch breaks 4 (it is bigger than 100 lines, if fixes more than one thing, including one that doesn't bother people as far as I can see, and it has trivial fixes in it.) So I don't think I am actually splitting hair as you seemed to suggest. I know some of these rules were slightly reworded afterwards, but still. I reviewed the latest stable series of patches with these rules in mind, trying to help. If the rules have since changed - and it seems they did, then instead of helping, I have been wasting your time, and mine. Where were the new rules discussed? We better have a web page summarizing the current rules for -stable if we want submitters and reviewers to do the right thing. Thanks. [1] http://kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20050612_315.html#5 [2] http://kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20050403_303.html#9 -- Jean Delvare