From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <51E4930F.9030602@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:25:51 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg KH CC: Guenter Roeck , 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> <51E479D0.4040304@zytor.com> <20130715232209.GB24650@roeck-us.net> <51E49036.5000901@zytor.com> <20130716002128.GA9278@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <20130716002128.GA9278@kroah.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/15/2013 05:21 PM, Greg KH wrote: >> >> 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. > Yes, it doesn't actually seem to be a problem in practice. In other words, the current system seems to work well, and unless someone wants to show cases where it doesn't work I don't see a reason to switch it... -hpa