From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:07:30 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: David Woodhouse Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] KS Topic request: Handling the Stable kernel, let's dump the cc: stable tag Message-ID: <20130715220730.GA23916@roeck-us.net> References: <1373916476.2748.69.camel@dabdike> <20130715201943.GA22131@roeck-us.net> <1373925868.24167.35.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1373925868.24167.35.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:04:28PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 13:19 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > That seems to be a bit drastic. It is quite useful to have the tag, > > but maybe it should only be added by the maintainer and not in the initial > > patch submission. This would ensure that the maintainer(s) made the decision. > > If the original patch submitter thinks that the patch is stable material, > > that information could be added in the comments section. > > In the case where a maintainer applies a patch with 'git am', surely > they can *see* that it's cc:stable? > If that maintainer is careful, yes. But that isn't the point or idea. The difference is that the maintainer would have to make an active decision to add the cc:stable tag vs. just going along with it. Guenter