On Tue 2018-04-17 16:19:35, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 05:55:49PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 17-04-18 13:31:51, Sasha Levin wrote:
We may be able to guesstimate the 'regression chance', but there's no way we can guess the 'annoyance' once. There are so many different use cases that we just can't even guess how many people would get "annoyed" by something.
As a maintainer, I hope I have reasonable idea what are common use cases for my subsystem. Those I cater to when estimating 'annoyance'. Sure I don't know all of the use cases so people doing unusual stuff hit more bugs and have to report them to get fixes included in -stable. But for me this is a preferable tradeoff over the risk of regression so this is the rule I use when tagging for stable. Now I'm not a -stable maintainer and I fully agree with "those who do the work decide" principle so pick whatever patches you think are appropriate, I just wanted explain why I don't think more patches in stable are necessarily good.
The AUTOSEL story is different for subsystems that don't do -stable, and subsystems that are actually doing the work (like yourself).
I'm not trying to override active maintainers, I'm trying to help them make decisions.
Ok, cool. Can you exclude LED subsystem, Hibernation and Nokia N900 stuff from autosel work?
Pavel