Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:54:16 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
| |
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Not if you said their regression causing patches will get reverted unless it > can be fixed for release.
Actually, I'm pretty happy reverting patches that cause regressions even if it *can* be "fixed for release". If there isn't a fix available within a day or two, it should get reverted.
The "fix" can then be re-applying the *fixed* patch - and at that point we should strive to require the person who re-submits the patch (with fixes) having to have an Ack from the person who found the problem in the first place, so that it's verified to actually fix things!
So I really would encourage people to send me emails like
Please revert commit xyz, because it breaks abc, and there is no fix available even though this was reported x days ago.
I have verified that revert just that change fixes the issue.
and just make the "because it breaks abc" be specific and clear enough that I go "Ahh, ok, I'd better revert it".
Also, please notice the latter part of the suggestion above: even if somebody has bisected down their problem to a specific commit, I really *do* want to hear that actually undoing the commit on top of the current tree acually fixes it again, because sometimes that just isn't the case - sometimes you end up having various interactions that means that reverting a commit might simply not even work.
I have no trouble at all with reverting commits in general. I think regressions are serious.
So the problematic cases are the cases where:
- the commit no longer reverts cleanly, or just otherwise introduces other infrastructure that other commits that already got merged depend on.
So sometimes you actually need a patch along with the revert (Andrew does that kind of thing anyway, since he works with patches regardless, so the "needs a patch" case is obviously not limited to just the problem cases)
- more commonly: it's not entirely clear which commit actually caused the problem.
but I *do* want to encourage people to revert (and ask other people to revert) much more aggressively. I personally try to revert things that people report regressions to me about very actively, unless I know somebody already has or is working on a fix.
Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |