linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] KS Topic request: Handling the Stable kernel, let's dump the cc: stable tag

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 15 Jul 2013 21:15:38 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
	ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] KS Topic request: Handling the Stable
 kernel, let's dump the cc: stable tag

On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:45:17PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> Have Greg, or whoever, change his script to not take commits marked for
> stable, but instead, forward the commit to the maintainer. Or as it
> already does today, to everyone on the Cc, and -by: tags. Change the
> script from being "stable review" to say "Look to see what you want, and
> resend what is needed for stable".

This sounds fairly close what James was suggesting, though with central
automation of the mail it out stage.

> Then the maintainer needs to look at all the patches that were marked
> for stable, and resend them to Greg saying which ones should go into
> stable.

One thing I don't particularly like about this is having to resend the
patches in response to mail; it seems cumbersome to do that rather than
reply to mail or something.  Requiring a positive acknowledgement or
action seems useful but the particular one seems a bit annoying; I'd
rather either just send the patch as part of the mark for stable
workflow or ack something in mail.

> Also, we could mandate that the maintainers do the backports too.

That's what happens already isn't it?

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)