[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YPBKZnWfK08PWarN@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2021 10:47:02 -0400
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 5.13.2-rc and others have many not for stable
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 11:01:04AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Because cc: stable came first, and for some reason people think that it
> > is all that is necessary to get patches committed to the stable tree,
> > despite it never being documented or that way. I have to correct
> > someone about this about 2x a month on the stable@...r list.
>
> For a developer, it's much easier to not care about "Cc: stable"
> at all, because as soon as you add a "Cc: stable" to a patch, or CC
> stable, someone will compain ;-) Much easier to just add a Fixes: tag,
> and know it will be backported to trees that have the "buggy" commit.
What sort of complaints have you gotten? I add "cc: stable" for the
ext4 tree, and I can't say I've gotten any complaints.
- Ted
Powered by blists - more mailing lists