Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] KS Topic request: Handling the Stable kernel, let's dump the cc: stable tag

Greg KH
2013-07-16T00:21:28Z

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 05:13:42PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 07/15/2013 04:22 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >
> > I agree, _should_. But again, that is not the point I was trying to make.
> > The keyword is _active_ decision vs. passive acceptance of a stable tag.
> >
> > If the stable tag is not added by the maintainer, it can always be added to
> > the stable queue after the code was pushed upstream. Nothing lost but a bit
> > of convenience.
> >
>
> ... and yet another opportunity for things to fall between the cracks,
> which is in my opinion MUCH more likely than something inappropriate
> being tagged Cc: stable.
>
> However, it doesn't seem to happen too often, but it does underscore the
> need for a maintainer to be able to *retroactively* NAK a patch for
> stable, if it is uncovered that it isn't appropriate after all.

I give maintainers 2 different chances to NAK a patch, and if they miss
those, I can also easily revert a patch that got applied and do a new
release, which I have done in the past.

greg k-h