Re: MPTCP stable backports: is the workflow OK?

[Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 12:10:22PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>Hi Greg, Sasha,
>
>Thank you for your reply!
>
>On 06/09/2024 11:56, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 11:36:25AM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>> Thank you again for your support when we send patches for stable
>>> versions for MPTCP!
>>>
>>> Recently, I sent many patches for the stable versions, and I just wanted
>>> to check if what I did was OK for you?
>>>
>>> I tried to reply to all the 'FAILED: patch' emails you sent, either with
>>> patches, or with reasons explaining why it is fine not to backport them.
>>> Are you OK with that?
>>>
>>> Or do you prefer only receiving the patches, and not the emails with the
>>> reasons not to backport some of them?
>>>
>>> About the patches, do you prefer to receive one big series per version
>>> or individual patches sent in reply to the different 'FAILED: patch'
>>> emails like I did?
>>
>> One big series, per kernel tree, would be ideal as that way I don't have
>> to pick them out and guess as to the order.
>
>Sure, I will do that next time, it is even easier for me.
>
>I sent the patches in the same order as they are in my working branch,
>but I understand they could be received in a different order.
>
>> Also, if you don't respond to the FAILED emails, that's fine with me, I
>> don't keep track, but maybe Sasha does as I know he does backports based
>> on them at times.  So I'll let him answer that.
>
>Thanks! I will wait for Sasha's reply.

Doesn't matter on my end :)

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha