Re: stable cc's in linux -next was Re: [BUG] x86: bootmem broken on SGI UV

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 04:24:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> 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