[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090623132316.28a4a348@chukar>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:23:16 -0600
From: Jake Edge <jake@....net>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
"Luis R. Rodriguez" <lrodriguez@...eros.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
"corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk" <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"tshibata@...jp.nec.com" <tshibata@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3.1415] Documentation: add documentation summary for
rc-series and merge window
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote:
> In fact, this whole discussion has shown one thing: people still
> think that "bug fix" somehow automatically means that it's
> appropriate after the merge window. That's simply not so.
Makes sense. It certainly is counter-intuitive sometimes, though.
Just to clarify, there would seem to be one other category of bugs that
is reasonable post-merge-window: those introduced by new features (or
bug fixes) that were added during the merge window (i.e. something
found in testing the new code during the -rc cycle). Those don't
necessarily have to be security/oops problems and, for the most part,
can't be regressions (at least for new features). Or should those
wait, by and large, for the next merge window?
jake
--
Jake Edge - LWN - jake@....net - http://lwn.net
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists