linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Documentation: stable: Add rule on what kind of patches are accepted

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: <4fbc9e89-24af-9d59-dab0-73925ac94df1@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Dec 2022 19:56:57 +0700
From:   Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To:     Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, sashal@...nel.org, corbet@....net
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, joneslee@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: stable: Add rule on what kind of patches
 are accepted

On 12/22/22 16:16, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> The list of rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones
> are not into the “-stable” tree, did not mention anything about new
> features and let the reader use its own judgement. One may be under the
> impression that new features are not accepted at all, but that's not true:
> new features are not accepted unless they fix a reported problem.
> Update documentation with missing rule.
> 

Are there any other examples of problems that can "only" be solved by
introducing new features? Or new huge features that are virtually
harder to backport?

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara