Den 16-04-2018 kl. 19:19, skrev Sasha Levin:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:12:24PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 16:02:03 +0000 Sasha Levin Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com wrote:
One of the things Greg is pushing strongly for is "bug compatibility": we want the kernel to behave the same way between mainline and stable. If the code is broken, it should be broken in the same way.
Wait! What does that mean? What's the purpose of stable if it is as broken as mainline?
This just means that if there is a fix that went in mainline, and the fix is broken somehow, we'd rather take the broken fix than not.
In this scenario, *something* will be broken, it's just a matter of what. We'd rather have the same thing broken between mainline and stable.
Yeah, but _intentionally_ breaking existing setups to stay "bug compatible" _is_ a _regression_ you _really_ _dont_ want in a stable supported distro. Because end-users dont care about upstream breaking stuff... its the distro that takes the heat for that...
Something "already broken" is not a regression...
As distro maintainer that means one now have to review _every_ patch that carries "AUTOSEL", follow all the mail threads that comes up about it, then track if it landed in -stable queue, and read every response and possible objection to all patches in the -stable queue a second time around... then check if it still got included in final stable point relase and then either revert them in distro kernel or go track down all the follow-up fixes needed...
Just to avoid being "bug compatible with master"
-- Thomas