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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <51E4930F.9030602@zytor.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Jul 2013 17:25:51 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC:	Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
	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 07/15/2013 05:21 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>
>> However, it doesn't seem to happen too often, but it does underscore the
>> need for a maintainer to be able to *retroactively* NAK a patch for
>> stable, if it is uncovered that it isn't appropriate after all.
> 
> I give maintainers 2 different chances to NAK a patch, and if they miss
> those, I can also easily revert a patch that got applied and do a new
> release, which I have done in the past.
> 

Yes, it doesn't actually seem to be a problem in practice.

In other words, the current system seems to work well, and unless
someone wants to show cases where it doesn't work I don't see a reason
to switch it...

	-hpa


--
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/