[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKdAkRQvwe93nwLgEQuSsmbUbzMzVjO22wrfg=wzQtfHoSq2DA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 11:05:48 -0700
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>,
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is Fixes line enough?
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:38 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@....edu> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:36:26PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > FWIW, I brought this up already at KS 2016, see Jon's coverage here:
> >
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/705220/
> >
> > My primary motivation to bring that up back then was to try to reduce the
> > number of patches that are taken into -stable while there is no good
> > justification for that (by requiring each and every of those having Fixes:
> > present as a requirement), but it didn't really lead anywhere.
>
> Ah, I didn't get that you were trying to suggest that things only go
> into stable if it has both Fixes: *and* Cc: Stable.
>
> If that's the problem you were trying to solve, perhaps we could ask
> Stephen Rothwell if he would be willing to run a script that sends
> nag-o-grams to Maintainers who incluce patches in linux-next that have
> Cc: stable but neither Fixes nor a "# 4.x" appended to the end of the
> Cc: stable line?
>
Patches adding new PCI/USB/ACPI IDs or DMI quirks are usually accepted
into stable but normally lack "Fixes" tag.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists