On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 10:49 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:

On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 09:27:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:

quoted

On 01/12/20 00:59, Sasha Levin wrote:

quoted

It's quite easy to NAK a patch too, just reply saying "no" and it'll be
dropped (just like this patch was dropped right after your first reply)
so the burden on maintainers is minimal.

The maintainers are _already_ marking patches with "Cc: stable".  That 

They're not, though. Some forget, some subsystems don't mark anything,
some don't mark it as it's not stable material when it lands in their
tree but then it turns out to be one if it sits there for too long.

quoted

(plus backports) is where the burden on maintainers should start and 
end.  I don't see the need to second guess them.

This is similar to describing our CI infrastructure as "second
guessing": why are we second guessing authors and maintainers who are
obviously doing the right thing by testing their patches and reporting
issues to them?

Are you saying that you have always gotten stable tags right? never
missed a stable tag where one should go?

I think this simply adds to the burden of being a maintainer
without all that much value.

I think the primary value here would be getting people to upgrade to
current versions rather than backporting to nominally stable and
relatively actively changed old versions.

This is very much related to this thread about trivial patches
and maintainer burdening:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1c7d7fde126bc0acf825766de64bf2f9b888f216.camel@HansenPartnership.com/ (local)


_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization