[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130821201600.GA10321@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:16:00 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Jochen Striepe <jochen@...ot.escape.de>,
Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, lwn@....net,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed stable release changes
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:07:03PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:58:16PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > The point I'm making, we should be more reluctant in pulling patches
> > into stable as quick as we are. A patch ideally should simmer in
> > linux-next for a bit, then go into mainline.
>
> Oh, and it is really debatable if the sheer volume of -stable patches is
> actually warranted - several people already raised the question whether
> we should be more conservative with the stable tag. But you're probably
> going to have this as one of the topics at KS...
And I pushed back on that. Which specific stable patch should _not_
have been included?
I am going to be pickier (and already have, as some maintainers have
found out), with what I accept, but so far, the number of patches I've
rejected can be counted on one hand, a very small percentage of the
overall number of stable patches.
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