This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.16.17 release.
There are 22 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to
this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please let
us know. If anyone is a maintainer of the proper subsystem, and wants
to add a Signed-off-by: line to the patch, please respond with it.
These patches are sent out with a number of different people on the
Cc: line. If you wish to be a reviewer, please email [email protected]
to add your name to the list. If you want to be off the reviewer list,
also email us.
Responses should be made by Fri, May 19 22:00 UTC. Anything received
after that time, might be too late.
thanks,
the -stable release team
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Chris Wright wrote:
>
> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.16.17 release.
> There are 22 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to
> this one.
I notice that none of the patches have authorship information.
Has that always been true and I just never noticed before?
Could you make your review script add the proper "From:" to the top of the
body of the email so that that is visible during review too?
Linus
* Linus Torvalds ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 17 May 2006, Chris Wright wrote:
> >
> > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.16.17 release.
> > There are 22 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to
> > this one.
>
> I notice that none of the patches have authorship information.
>
> Has that always been true and I just never noticed before?
It has always been that way with my script, I think Greg's as well. Of
course, it's in the patch, and goes into git with proper authorship.
> Could you make your review script add the proper "From:" to the top of the
> body of the email so that that is visible during review too?
Sure, that should be doable...SMOS (small matter of scripting ;-)
thanks,
-chris
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 03:36:01PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds ([email protected]) wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 17 May 2006, Chris Wright wrote:
> > >
> > > This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.16.17 release.
> > > There are 22 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to
> > > this one.
> >
> > I notice that none of the patches have authorship information.
> >
> > Has that always been true and I just never noticed before?
>
> It has always been that way with my script, I think Greg's as well. Of
> course, it's in the patch, and goes into git with proper authorship.
The original versions of the patches do have the proper authorship
information, it's just that quilt strips it off when generating emails
like this.
When applying them to the git tree, everything comes out properly and
they get the correct authorship information. And the git tools know to
properly create the emails with the right From: lines, maybe I should
play around with quilt to add that to it too...
thanks,
greg k-h
Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 03:36:01PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
>> * Linus Torvalds ([email protected]) wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 17 May 2006, Chris Wright wrote:
>>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.16.17 release.
>>>> There are 22 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to
>>>> this one.
>>> I notice that none of the patches have authorship information.
>>>
>>> Has that always been true and I just never noticed before?
>> It has always been that way with my script, I think Greg's as well. Of
>> course, it's in the patch, and goes into git with proper authorship.
>
> The original versions of the patches do have the proper authorship
> information, it's just that quilt strips it off when generating emails
> like this.
>
> When applying them to the git tree, everything comes out properly and
> they get the correct authorship information. And the git tools know to
> properly create the emails with the right From: lines, maybe I should
> play around with quilt to add that to it too...
While we're on it.. Just another small nitpick. Random patch from this 00/22
series:
Subject: [PATCH 05/22] [PATCH] smbfs: Fix slab corruption in samba error path
Can the 2nd "[PATCH]" tag be removed as well? ;)
/mjt
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 01:15:40PM +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 03:36:01PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> >> * Linus Torvalds ([email protected]) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 17 May 2006, Chris Wright wrote:
> >>>> This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.16.17 release.
> >>>> There are 22 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response to
> >>>> this one.
> >>> I notice that none of the patches have authorship information.
> >>>
> >>> Has that always been true and I just never noticed before?
> >> It has always been that way with my script, I think Greg's as well. Of
> >> course, it's in the patch, and goes into git with proper authorship.
> >
> > The original versions of the patches do have the proper authorship
> > information, it's just that quilt strips it off when generating emails
> > like this.
> >
> > When applying them to the git tree, everything comes out properly and
> > they get the correct authorship information. And the git tools know to
> > properly create the emails with the right From: lines, maybe I should
> > play around with quilt to add that to it too...
>
> While we're on it.. Just another small nitpick. Random patch from this 00/22
> series:
>
> Subject: [PATCH 05/22] [PATCH] smbfs: Fix slab corruption in samba error path
>
> Can the 2nd "[PATCH]" tag be removed as well? ;)
Oops, sorry about that. I've fixed that up for all of the patches now,
I forgot to do that this time around.
thanks,
greg k-h