[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080608103835.0c0b1e83@osprey.hogchain.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 10:38:35 -0500
From: Jay Cliburn <jacliburn@...lsouth.net>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: w@....eu, pupilla@...mail.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org, jeff@...zik.org
Subject: Re: [patch 00/50] 2.6.25.6 -stable review
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 07:10:51 -0700 (PDT)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> If you ask me in the future about the status of a -stable
> patch from the networking, I'll let you know exactly what
> is happening to that patch wrt. stable. I rarely forget
> to submit an appropriate patch, and when I do forget you
> merely have to let me know (rather than submitting it
> to -stable directly, please don't do that) so that I can
> fit it in with what I plan to submit to -stable already.
As a netdev driver maintainer, I've been following this workflow for
patches that need to go to -stable:
1. I submit a mainline patch to Jeff Garzik.
2. Jeff submits to David.
3. David submits to Linus.
4. Linus merges patch into mainline.
5. I extract mainline commit ID.
6. I apply and test patch against appropriate 2.6.x.y git tree.
7. I submit patch directly to -stable.
David's admonition tells me I'm doing it wrong, and that I should
submit the stable patch to Jeff as well. Am I right?
Jay
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists