From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752417AbZH1IX5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Aug 2009 04:23:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752329AbZH1IX4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Aug 2009 04:23:56 -0400 Received: from hp3.statik.tu-cottbus.de ([141.43.120.68]:44061 "EHLO hp3.statik.tu-cottbus.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752227AbZH1IXz (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Aug 2009 04:23:55 -0400 Message-ID: <4A97940A.7020703@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:23:38 +0200 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090605 SeaMonkey/1.1.17 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" CC: Chris Wright , stable-review@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Greg KH , =?UTF-8?B?Q2hyaXM=?= =?UTF-8?B?dGlhbiBTdMO2dmVrZW4=?= Subject: Re: Would it help to encourage users to read/test stable-review patches References: <43e72e890908271122l6b08aaa5lc66de78301c7c88d@mail.gmail.com> <20090827182952.GC10360@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <43e72e890908271209mdbaaf03l820aade2266eb54c@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <43e72e890908271209mdbaaf03l820aade2266eb54c@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> More review never hurts, but do you think there's a specific lack or >> problem? > > Not really, I was thinking about the fellow Ubunteros users who tend > to not have a clue but sometimes enough good will to want to help. If > the average user understood better the upstream process then perhaps > it would become clearer to them the importance of stable patches and > stable-review. Shouldn't these people rather get started with "the other stable kernel", called 2.6.x-rcZ? And the next level would be to either test -next or follow the master branch of a subsystem development tree of their interest. I think it could be more effective overall to activate more people who watch for regressions in the mainline, send qualified and early regression reports, and test candidate fixes. A side effect of better -rc kernels will be a shallower 2.6.x.y branch queue. Patches which are submitted for stable-review should already have been tested as part of the upstream kernel on affected and unaffected systems. As Chris wrote, patches which obviously need further field testing when backported to -stable are per definition too risky for -stable in the first place. -stable submission should be low-risk cherry-picking. > Bringing users closer to stable-review to me indicates > more users would understand the stable process and therefore would > stop bitching to me when a 'non-cirtical' fix never made it into their > ancient stable. Cc'ing one of those. Ah, you have especially /these/ people in mind. Well, set up a clever procmail filter which autoresponds with a pointer to Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt... :-) -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--= =--- ===-- http://arcgraph.de/sr/