[Mesa-dev] [Mesa-stable] [PATCH] radv: Fix driver UUID SHA1 init.

Emil Velikov emil.l.velikov at gmail.com
Sun Sep 23 13:41:31 UTC 2018


On 21 September 2018 at 17:49, Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> wrote:
> Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-09-21 09:07:58)
>> On 21 September 2018 at 16:55, Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> wrote:
>> > Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-09-21 08:47:30)
>> >> On 21 September 2018 at 08:19, Juan A. Suarez Romero
>> >> <jasuarez at igalia.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 20:16 +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:33 PM Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at intel.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Thursday, 2018-09-20 19:17:57 +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>> >> >> > > Was missing the init, found by Emil.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > > Fixes: d17443a4593 "radv: Use build ID if available for cache UUID."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Reviewed-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at intel.com>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > CC: <mesa-stable at lists.freedesktop.org>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Cc'ing mesa-stable has no effect when you're already adding the
>> >> >> > proper Fixes: tag :)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Last time I asked about the difference between Fixes and CC, the
>> >> >> conclusion I got that Fixes is only best effort for the stable
>> >> >> branches and that if it does not apply it will be dropped silently,
>> >> >> while for the CC ones the release manager will notify you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > In previous releases that was the way it worked: we always our best effort to
>> >> > apply CC and Fixes patches. The difference was that if we couldn't apply the
>> >> > patch, then we were only notifying in the pre-announcement "Rejected" section
>> >> > about the CC, and silently ignoring the Fixes.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > But nowadays, we notify about all the candidates to stable, which are CC and
>> >> > Fixes.
>> >> >
>> >> Here is an alternative wording, hopefully it will make things clearer:
>> >>
>> >> Both CC and Fixes work and having both does not hurt.
>> >>
>> >> Fixes provides clear indication when/where the problem originates.
>> >> Cc _explicitly_ requests the patch to be in stable - that's why we
>> >> have the list + late nominations.
>> >>
>> >> It _explicit_ nomination does _not_ apply then the nominator is informed.
>> >>
>> >> -Emil
>> >
>> > Yeah, that's not useful. We don't need a "you can put this in if you want but
>> > don't tell me if you didn't". Either it's nominated or it's not. If Fixes:
>> > doesn't mean "I want this in any stable branch with commit X" then we should
>> > stop using the tag.
>> >
>> Fixes means "I want this _anywhere_ with commit X". No idea how you
>> read my comment otherwise ;-)
>>
>> -Emil
>
> Where you said CC is _explicit_ but fixes isn't. Having two ways to do the same
> thing that are subtly different seems like a bad idea to me.
>
> I'm going to admit this is just another reason that I feel like our whole stable
> process is rather fragile and tedious. We have three ways to nominate a patch
> that are all subtly different, but those differences are not clearly documented.

Keep in mind that before I started the documentation was a mere
fraction of what it is today.
As I said multiple times if something is unclear - ask _and_ send
patches to clarify the documentation.

Sadly close to no patches appear :-(

Our thinking, and hence expressions vary, so I'm more than happy to
change the docs so that they are better suited for a wider audience.

As a TL;DR _nothing_ is rejected silently ;-)

-Emil


More information about the mesa-dev mailing list