On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 02:26:53PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 17:42:38 +0000 Sasha Levin Alexander.Levin@microsoft.com wrote:
Also note that all of these patches were tagged for stable and actually ended up in at least one tree.
This is why I'm basing a lot of my decision making on the rejection rate. If the AUTOSEL process does the job well enough as the "regular" process did before, why push it back?
Because I think we are adding too many patches to stable. And automating it may just make things worse. Your examples above back my argument more than they refute it. If people can't determine what is "obviously correct" how is automation going to do any better?
I don't understand that statament, it sounds illogical to me.
If I were to tell you that I have a crack team of 10 kernel hackers who dig through all mainline commits to find commits that should be backported to stable, and they do it with less mistakes than authors/maintainers make when they tag their own commits, would I get the same level of objection?
On the correctness side, I have another effort to improve the quality of testing -stable commits get, but this is somewhat unrelated to the whole automatic selection process.