On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 03:15:36PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > >So I'll ask the same question that Christoph asked me: If nobody is
> > > >reporting problems on 3.0.x, why do this and risk regression and
> > > >fallout that requires fixing?
> > > >
> > > >FWIW, what testing have you done?
> > >
> > > Do you mean?
> > >
> > > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-09/msg00002.html
> > >
> > > I read that message as a concern that your original Linux 3.0-stable
> > > patch series contained some items that did not meet the -stable
> > > criteria.
> > I read it as "why change something that no-one is reporting bugs
> > for?".
> I guess we could all stop putting words in his mouth and let him speak for
> himself. Christoph (cc'd), would you please clarify your position?
Well, both of the above applies. A lot of the patches are defintively
above the normal -stable criteria. If we have a reall good reason we
might be able to bend the criteria, but I'd really love to see
justificaton for that, preferably in form of user reports of grave
> Stable folk (cc'd Greg), what is your disposition with regard to proposing
> patches for -stable proactively? Do we really need to have a bug report from
> 3.0-stable user for every bug we propose for 3.0-stable?
I don't think we'll need any report for things that are
a) obvious lingering big problems
b) non-invasive fixes
occasionally just one of the criteria should be enough.