Re: Patch "sched: Give CPU bound RT tasks preference" has been added to the 2.6.32-longterm tree

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

[ about -stable merge policy ]

* Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> wrote:

> > We try to concentrate on regression fixes though.
> 
> Hi, I cannot fully agree with this. The question is who are "we" here?

It's the upstream policy and the scheduler tree certainly follows it.

I think i remember Linus having stated it before (cannot find the mail), but it's 
pretty common-sense so easy to reproduce (i've Cc:-ed Linus in case he wants to 
chime in):

   The idea is to treat Linus's tree and -stable as an organic whole: so -stable
   is upstream as well, but with *bug* fixes backported. It's emphatically not a 
   separate "for backporting interesting/important bits" tree.

   And as such whatever a maintainer can send to Linus in -rc's (in particular late
   -rc's) is -stable eligible.

   For the rest of patches: generally not eligible, but with common-sense 
   exceptions.

   "It's a nice patch" or "it will obviously not cause problems" or "this is
   important to us" does not make a patch eligible for -stable.

   Adding a -stable tag to a commit and *not* sending it to Linus for the next -rc
   also makes a patch almost automatically *not* eligible: if it was not important
   enough to have it in the next -rc then it's doubly not eligible for -stable ...

   I think this common-sense rule is easy to follow:

    " If you ever have to ask yourself whether a patch queued up for -stable is 
      really -stable eligible it probably isnt. "

   It's called -stable for a reason.

Thanks,

	Ingo