On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:35:29AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 09:52:53AM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:18:14AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 06:28:13PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
Alternatively I could just invent a new tag to replace the "Fixes:" ("Fixes-no-backport?") to be used on patches which fix a known previous commit but which we don't want backported.
No please, that's not needed, I'll just ignore these types of patches now, and will go drop these from the queues.
Sasha, can you also add these to your "do not apply" script as well?
Sure, but I don't see how this is viable in the long term. Look at distros that don't follow LTS trees and cherry pick only important fixes, and see how many of those don't have a stable@ tag.
I've been talking to an enterprise distro who chooses not to use the LTS releases, and it's mainly because they tried it, and there was too many regressions leading to their customers filing problem reports which get escalated to their engineers, leading to unhappy customers and extra work for their engineers. (And they have numbers to back up this assertion; this isn't just a gut feel sort of thing.)
When did they last actually do this? Before or after we started testing stable releases better?
I have numbers to back up the other side, along with the security research showing that to ignore these stable releases puts systems at documented risk.
But enterprise distros really are a small market these days, a rounding error compared to Android phones, so maybe we just ignore what they do as it's a very tiny niche market these days? :)
thanks,
greg k-h