From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LvuLO-0003t7-35
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:19:34 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LvuLI-0003qp-NQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:19:32 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36261 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LvuLH-0003qV-Jk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:19:28 -0400
Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.249]:33997)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <anthony@codemonkey.ws>) id 1LvuLG-0005aR-W4
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:19:27 -0400
Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c5so410613rvf.22
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <49EC8469.7040009@codemonkey.ws>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 09:19:21 -0500
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH,
	RFC] Add file describing rules for  submitting patches
References: <f43fc5580904190832g413e67bn494f696a3e3279f4@mail.gmail.com>	<49EB4D42.4050206@redhat.com>	<f43fc5580904190959nbd0f92ev6a2932712aab179f@mail.gmail.com>
	<76072A1C-8520-46D3-B1E3-F8B226DF361B@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <76072A1C-8520-46D3-B1E3-F8B226DF361B@web.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Andreas Färber wrote:
>
> 4.5. -- I'd suspect that for most patches for STABLE it's not 
> necessary to send them twice, once against the stable branch, when 
> they can easily be cherry-picked or patch -p1'ed. Please consider 
> "should" or "must ... if it differs from devel branch" there.

I consider all patches for the stable branch.  [STABLE] is just a hint 
as far as I'm concerned.  If a set of patches are too difficult to apply 
to the stable branch, I reserve the right to bounce the series, even for 
trunk, asking for two submissions but then again, if this ever happened, 
it suggests that either we need a new release (because things have 
changed too much since the last release) or that the patch probably 
shouldn't be in stable.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori