From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760698Ab0JIXwJ (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Oct 2010 19:52:09 -0400 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:54116 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760647Ab0JIXwC (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Oct 2010 19:52:02 -0400 Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 16:51:41 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Dave Airlie , linux-kernel , Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: stable cc's in linux -next was Re: [BUG] x86: bootmem broken on SGI UV Message-ID: <20101009235141.GB15564@kroah.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 04:24:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > Do we track people dong this at all? I wonder how many patches in > > linux-next have cc: stable in them but haven't been submitted to > > Linus, > > The other side of that coin is to wonder how many patches get marked > as "stable" when they definitely shouldn't be. > > I know that's a non-empty set. Too many developers think that the > thing they fix is so important that it needs to be backported. And it > doesn't help that Greg is sometimes over-eager to take things without > them being even in my tree long enough to get much testing. That's a tough thing to judge as I usually batch up stable patches/releases every other week or so. This can cause some patches to be in your tree longer than others. Should I just have a general "wait a week/release" type rule here before adding them to a stable tree for most patches that aren't "obvious"? thanks, greg k-h