On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 06:28:50PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Is there a reason not to take LED fixes if they fix a bug and don't cause a regression? Sure, we can draw some arbitrary line, maybe designate some subsystems that are more "important" than others, but what's the point?
There's a tradeoff.
You want to fix serious bugs in stable, and you really don't want regressions in stable. And ... stable not having 1000s of patches would be nice, too.
I don't think we should use a number cap here, but rather look at the regression rate: how many patches broke something?
Since the rate we're seeing now with AUTOSEL is similar to what we were seeing before AUTOSEL, what's the problem it's causing?
Regression rate should not be the only criteria.
More patches mean bigger chance customer's patches will have a conflict with something in -stable, for example.
Out of tree patches can't be a consideration here. There are no guarantees for out of tree code, ever.