From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759171AbZAWH44 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:56:56 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752713AbZAWH4r (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:56:47 -0500 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:1722 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752572AbZAWH4r (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Jan 2009 02:56:47 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 08:53:34 +0100 From: Willy Tarreau To: Greg KH Cc: Jesper Juhl , Greg KH , "Theodore Ts'o" , Zwane Mwaikambo , "David S. Miller" , Florian Fainelli , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, Eugene Teo , Justin Forbes , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Wedgwood , Domenico Andreoli , Randy Dunlap , Michael Krufky , alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, Chuck Ebbert , Dave Jones , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Jake Edge , Chuck Wolber , stable@kernel.org, Rodrigo Rubira Branco Subject: Re: [stable] [patch 24/46] r6040: bump release number to 0.19 Message-ID: <20090123075334.GA1415@1wt.eu> References: <20090123010651.683741823@mini.kroah.org> <20090123011219.GY19756@kroah.com> <20090123020403.GA4712@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090123020403.GA4712@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 06:04:03PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 02:31:22AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > 2.6.28-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. > > > > > > > It's simple enough, sure, but it doesn't really conform to the guidelines > > set out for -stable patches in Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt : > > > > ... > > - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a > > problem..." type thing). > > ... > > - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes, > > whitespace cleanups, etc). > > ... > > > > I'm trying to come up with some real problem this fixes and a reason why > > we want it in -stable, but I cannot... > > You missed the patches leading up to this one that updated the driver to > this version number, without changing the number. This patch is then > valid. I too find it important for bug reports that version numbers reflect the driver status as close as possible. Willy