Re: Autoselect patches for stable (Was: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for 4.9 36/56] drm/i915: Fix the level 0 max_wm hack on VLV/CHV)

[alexander.levin@verizon.com]

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 12:09:33PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>The root of the concern seems to be around how the stable process
>currently works and how auto-selection plays into that.  When Greg
>sends out the RC, the default model of "if nobody objects, this patch
>will get included in the next stable release" works because a human
>already identified as that needing to be included.  So the review is
>looking for a NAK, but that's overriding another human's explicit
>decision with reasons.  For something that is auto-selected, people
>seem concerned that the default should be flipped.  Perhaps they'd be
>more comfortable if auto-selected packages required a human ACK before
>they are included?

Josh, I review the autogenerated list of commits, patch by patch,
myself, before sending it out. So there is a human involved in the
process.

Admittingly I'm not perfect and things do slip by once in a while. I
always look back and try to improve the process. Although the sample
size is small now (~600 commits proposed and merged using this method)
I don't belive the error rate is higher than the error rate for
"regular" stable tree commits.

I'd treat autoselection as a helper tool for the stable tree
maintainer rather than a magical way to produce stable commits (we're
not going to replace Greg with a robot any time soon).

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha