Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Mar 2022 06:36:30 +0200 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: Stable release process proposal (Was: Linux 5.10.109) |
| |
On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 02:49:00AM +0300, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote: > Dear Greg, > > First of all, thank you very much for keeping stable maintenance so well. > > We (Linux Verification Center of ISPRAS (linuxtesting.org)) are going to > join a team of regular testers for releases in 5.10 stable branch (and > other branches later). We are deploying some test automation for that > and have met an oddity that would to discuss. > > Sometimes, like in 5.10.109 release, we have a situation when a > released version (5.10.109) differs from the release candidate > (5.10.109-rс1). In this case there was a patch "llc: only change > llc->dev when bind()succeeds" added to fix a bug in another llc fix. > Unfortunately, as Pavel noted, this patch does not fix a bug, but > introduces a new one, because another commit b37a46683739 ("netdevice: > add the case if dev is NULL") was missed in 5.10 branch.
This happens quite frequently due to issues found in testing. It's not a new thing.
> The problem will be fixed in 5.10.110, but we still have a couple oddities: > - we have a release that should not be recommended for use > - we have a commit message misleading users when says: > > Tested-by: Pavel Machek (CIP) <pavel@denx.de> > Tested-by: Fox Chen <foxhlchen@gmail.com> > Tested-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> > Tested-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> > Tested-by: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com> > Tested-by: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> > Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing <lkft@linaro.org> > Tested-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip.mukherjee@codethink.co.uk> > Tested-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> > > but actually nobody tested that version. > > There are potential modifications in stable release process that can > prevent such problems: > > (1) to always release rс2 when there are changes in rc1 introduced > > (2) to avoid Tested-by: section from release commits in such situations. > > Or may be it is overkill and it too complicates maintenance work to be > worth. What do you think?
I think it's not worth the extra work on my side for this given the already large workload. What would benifit from this to justify it?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |