[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207090345540.8224@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 03:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>
cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Linux Kernel Developers List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: talk about "Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org"
On Sat, 7 Jul 2012, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> > I couldn't remember whether the canonical marking is stable@...nel.org
> > or stable@...r.kernel.org, so I went looking, and discovered that it
> > wasn't mentioned in the kernel sources. You can find mention of it in
> > Greg K-H's blog, but not everyone would necessarily find this blog
> > entry.
>
> It's documented in Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt.
>
I'm wondering if it would be helpful to the stable maintainers if we
explicitly asked that patches including "Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org" also
include the version number of the earliest version that the change should
be backported to?
Andrew and others do this quite often with
Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org [3.2+]
so perhaps such a convention should be added to the documentation?
--
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