On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 11:32:15AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
- It must be obviously correct and tested.
If it introduces new bug, it is not correct, and certainly not obviously correct.
As you might have noticed, we don't strictly follow the rules.
Yes, I noticed. And what I'm saying is that perhaps you should follow the rules more strictly.
Again, this was stated many times by Greg and others, the rules are not there to be strictly followed.
Take a look at the whole PTI story as an example. It's way more than 100 lines, it's not obviously corrent, it fixed more than 1 thing, and so on, and yet it went in -stable!
Would you argue we shouldn't have backported PTI to -stable?
Actually, I was surprised with PTI going to stable. That was clearly against the rules. Maybe the security bug was ugly enough to warrant that.
But please don't use it as an argument for applying any random patches...
How about this: if a -stable maintainer has concerns with how I follow the -stable rules, he's more than welcome to reject my patches. Sounds like a plan?