[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1374000084.6458.36.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:41:24 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, David Lang <david@...g.hm>,
"ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] When to push bug fixes to mainline
On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 11:29 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Anyway, the point I'm making is that Q&A is limited and often even
> actively misleading ("Hey, I have three tested-by's, so it must be
> fine"), and we might actually want to have a new class of
> "non-critical patch that might be worth backporting to stable, but
> only do so after it's been in a release for some time". Because while
> it might be an "obvious" fix, maybe it's not critical enough that it
> needs to be backported _now_ - maybe it could wait a month or two, and
> get wider testing.
Should we add another stable tag?
Have the default Cc: stable have to wait a rc or two in mainline before
it makes its way to the stable tree. Have a stable-critical for those
that are bugs that are security fixes than need to be backported ASAP.
-- Steve
--
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