From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <51E479D0.4040304@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 15:38:08 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Guenter Roeck CC: David Woodhouse , 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 References: <1373916476.2748.69.camel@dabdike> <20130715201943.GA22131@roeck-us.net> <1373925868.24167.35.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20130715220730.GA23916@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <20130715220730.GA23916@roeck-us.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/15/2013 03:07 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > 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. > WTF? If a maintainer applies a patch and misses that the thing had a Cc: tag, that maintainer should never have applied the patch in the first place. It gets stickier in the case of submaintainers where there are git pulls involved. -hpa