From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <51E37694.30608@huawei.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:12:04 +0800 From: Li Zefan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Willy Tarreau CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linus Torvalds , Guenter Roeck , Dave Jones , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , stable Subject: Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review References: <20130711222935.GA11340@redhat.com> <20130711224455.GA17222@kroah.com> <20130712141530.GA3629@roeck-us.net> <20130712173150.GA5534@roeck-us.net> <20130712195051.GB32054@1wt.eu> <20130713062223.GA15155@kroah.com> <20130713063607.GI32054@1wt.eu> <20130713064801.GA1305@kroah.com> <20130713071239.GJ32054@1wt.eu> In-Reply-To: <20130713071239.GJ32054@1wt.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > It is *my* conception of the stable branch, but I think that many people > have different expectations about what should be merged or not. For example > in old LTS branches, I used to merge what was relevant for servers only, We have lots of embeded systems running 2.6.32 kernel. And we encountered a critical bug, and we had to backported some patches which are not bug fixes to prevent the bug from happening. > because I saw no reason why an old kernel would be used on a laptop (eg: > 2.4). So I always skipped wifi, alsa, drm, etc... With 2.6.32, the Debian > kernel guys provided me with a lot of fixes in these areas, explaining > that these fixes addressed issues that their users were facing, and they > were perfectly right. It's just that I didn't expect this at all.