Messages in this thread | | | From | Alexey Khoroshilov <> | Subject | Re: Stable release process proposal (Was: Linux 5.10.109) | Date | Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:29:33 +0300 |
| |
On 30.03.2022 07:36, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > 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? I see, thank you.
I believed the goal is to provide some minimal quality guarantees for a particular version of the code. But if the process of updates is quite intensive, it may make sense to transfer responsibility for particular release verification downstream.
Best regards, Alexey
| |