From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <51E038AC.6060107@zytor.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:11:08 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Theodore Ts'o" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] When to push bug fixes to mainline References: <20130711214830.611455274@linuxfoundation.org> <20130712005023.GB31005@thunk.org> In-Reply-To: <20130712005023.GB31005@thunk.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/11/2013 05:50 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > At least at one point in the past... > And at at least one *other* point in the past, Linus stated that "holding back anything with a Cc: stable waiting for the merge window is wrong". This would imply that the post-rc5-or-so policy and the stable policy are effectively the same. Now, "policy" is a big word, and Linus and the maintainers generally have exercised discretion here and I would think that a lot of it really depends on the trust relationship between Linus and maintainer, or between maintainer and submaintainer. I generally try to flag to Linus when I push something that he may consider questionable, and I very rarely get > Maybe the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of holding back > changes and trying to avoid the risk of introducing regressions; > perhaps this would be a good topic to discuss at the Kernel Summit. I think it would, to the extent such a policy is needed and workable. I think there is a serious risk in getting to hung up on policy. -hpa