From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2012 19:05:37 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2] ARM: Build dtb files in all target
In-Reply-To: <1346606781.7787.25.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
References: <20120831223219.GA6906@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <1346509216.13980.23.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
 <20120901152544.GB24085@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20120901163235.GB748@mannheim-rule.local>
 <20120901182207.GC24085@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20120901183859.GA958@mannheim-rule.local>
 <20120901201105.GD24085@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <1346594067.4958.7.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
 <20120902170434.GA31141@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <1346606781.7787.25.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk>
Message-ID: <20120902180537.GB31141@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 06:26:21PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-09-02 at 18:04 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 02:54:27PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2012-09-01 at 21:11 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > It is as clear as mud now when stable at vger.kernel.org should be Cc'd and
> > > > when it should not.
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > Perhaps what you're missing is that it's an open mailing list (as was
> > > stable at kernel.org), not an alias for 'the stable team'.  As with any
> > > other kernel mailing list, you don't need to get explicit permission to
> > > send mail to it.  So there is no 'should not'.
> > 
> > Then please explain why people keep getting Greg's standard form "this
> > is not how you submit patches for stable" when they CC a _discussion_
> > to the address.
> 
> When someone sends a patch that they want to be applied in mainline and
> then later in stable updates, they must include the cc: line in the
> commit message.  Actually cc'ing to the stable list is optional.
> 
> When someone sends a preliminary version of a patch for discussion, and
> that might, after proper submission, be wanted in stable updates, that
> line is not necessary.  The patch should however have '[RFC]' in the
> subject, so everyone understands that this is not a request for the
> patch to be applied.  This should not result in a form response.

You're still saying something different from the DOCUMENTED position
and you're still refusing to accept that you are - even after I've
quoted the _exact_ text which is _very_ _clear_.

Please fix the documentation.