From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <1373922445.17876.204.camel@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] KS Topic request: Handling the Stable kernel, let's dump the cc: stable tag From: Steven Rostedt To: Mark Brown Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:07:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130715201538.GE11538@sirena.org.uk> References: <1373917517.17876.193.camel@gandalf.local.home> <20130715201538.GE11538@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 21:15 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > One thing I don't particularly like about this is having to resend the > patches in response to mail; it seems cumbersome to do that rather than > reply to mail or something. Requiring a positive acknowledgement or > action seems useful but the particular one seems a bit annoying; I'd > rather either just send the patch as part of the mark for stable > workflow or ack something in mail. A reply to the email before it goes in would work as well. I'm just saying that the stable tag alone should not be the criteria of what goes into stable. > > > Also, we could mandate that the maintainers do the backports too. > > That's what happens already isn't it? Only if it breaks. But I've been quite impressed at a lot of the patches that Greg seems to get working himself. He gets things backported that don't look to be automated. I guess if it's trivial enough he does the work himself. But I've had a few commits where I thought for sure I would get a slew of "FAILED to apply" stable messages that ended up going in without my help. -- Steve