[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101009235141.GB15564@kroah.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 16:51:41 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Subject: Re: stable cc's in linux -next was Re: [BUG] x86: bootmem broken
on SGI UV
On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 04:24:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Do we track people dong this at all? I wonder how many patches in
> > linux-next have cc: stable in them but haven't been submitted to
> > Linus,
>
> The other side of that coin is to wonder how many patches get marked
> as "stable" when they definitely shouldn't be.
>
> I know that's a non-empty set. Too many developers think that the
> thing they fix is so important that it needs to be backported. And it
> doesn't help that Greg is sometimes over-eager to take things without
> them being even in my tree long enough to get much testing.
That's a tough thing to judge as I usually batch up stable
patches/releases every other week or so. This can cause some patches to
be in your tree longer than others.
Should I just have a general "wait a week/release" type rule here before
adding them to a stable tree for most patches that aren't "obvious"?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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