[PATCH] Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt: Clarification

[PATCH] Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt: Clarification

[Chuck Wolber]

This reflects the clarification made on what patches the -stable team 
accepts. This applies cleanly to the 2.6.16-rc1 kernel.

Signed-off-by: Chuck Wolber <chuckw@quantumlinux.com>
---

--- a/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt     2006-01-16 23:44:47.000000000 -0800
+++ b/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt     2006-01-29 01:45:44.000000000 -0800
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
    whitespace cleanups, etc).
  - It must be accepted by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
  - It must follow the Documentation/SubmittingPatches rules.
+ - Patches for any 2.6 stable kernel release will be considered.


 Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree:

Re: [PATCH] Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt: Clarification

[Greg KH]

On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 01:50:16AM -0800, Chuck Wolber wrote:
> 
> This reflects the clarification made on what patches the -stable team 
> accepts. This applies cleanly to the 2.6.16-rc1 kernel.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Wolber <chuckw@quantumlinux.com>
> ---
> 
> --- a/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt     2006-01-16 23:44:47.000000000 -0800
> +++ b/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt     2006-01-29 01:45:44.000000000 -0800
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>     whitespace cleanups, etc).
>   - It must be accepted by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
>   - It must follow the Documentation/SubmittingPatches rules.
> + - Patches for any 2.6 stable kernel release will be considered.

No, this isn't true.

People complained that we immediatly abandonded the last stable kernel
when a new one came out, so we said we would take patches for a bit on
the last series if people wanted to send them.

That's all, it's not some confusing thing, and we are very much not
going to accept patches for "any" kernel release.

So no, I'm not going to accept this.

thanks,

greg k-h

> 
> 
>  Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree:

-- 

Re: [PATCH] Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt: Clarification

[Chuck Wolber]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Greg KH wrote:

> People complained that we immediatly abandonded the last stable kernel 
> when a new one came out, so we said we would take patches for a bit on 
> the last series if people wanted to send them.
> 
> That's all, it's not some confusing thing, and we are very much not 
> going to accept patches for "any" kernel release.
> 
> So no, I'm not going to accept this.

Ok, I gave it a shot. Is it worth pursuing an alternate wording to better 
document our scope?

..Chuck..


-- 
http://www.quantumlinux.com
 Quantum Linux Laboratories, LLC.
 ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology

 "The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply
  social values more noble than mere monetary profit." - FDR

Re: [PATCH] Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt: Clarification

[Greg KH]

On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 11:52:05AM -0800, Chuck Wolber wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2006, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > People complained that we immediatly abandonded the last stable kernel 
> > when a new one came out, so we said we would take patches for a bit on 
> > the last series if people wanted to send them.
> > 
> > That's all, it's not some confusing thing, and we are very much not 
> > going to accept patches for "any" kernel release.
> > 
> > So no, I'm not going to accept this.
> 
> Ok, I gave it a shot. Is it worth pursuing an alternate wording to better 
> document our scope?

Personally, I don't think so, but if you convince enough others...

thanks,

greg k-h