Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751923Ab3GMGgS (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jul 2013 02:36:18 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:34573 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751169Ab3GMGgR (ORCPT ); Sat, 13 Jul 2013 02:36:17 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 08:36:07 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Linus Torvalds , Guenter Roeck , Dave Jones , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , stable Subject: Re: [ 00/19] 3.10.1-stable review Message-ID: <20130713063607.GI32054@1wt.eu> References: <20130711214830.611455274@linuxfoundation.org> <20130711222935.GA11340@redhat.com> <20130711224455.GA17222@kroah.com> <20130712141530.GA3629@roeck-us.net> <20130712173150.GA5534@roeck-us.net> <20130712195051.GB32054@1wt.eu> <20130713062223.GA15155@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130713062223.GA15155@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1815 Lines: 37 On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 11:22:23PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > So probably we should incite patch contributors to add a specific > > tag such as "Fixes: 3.5 and later", so that non-important patches > > do not need the Cc:stable anymore, but users who experience an issue > > can easily spot them and ask for their inclusion. > > Huh? What's wrong with the existing way people mark stable patches to > go back to much older kernel versions? Is that not working well enough > for you? > > And if something "fixes" an issue, then I want it in stable, just like > Linus wants that in his tree. It's the difference between "this is a fix" and "please backport this fix into stable". As we aid in this thread, cc:stable is a bit too much automatic and sometimes not appropriate (not important enough fixes). But when fixes not apparently suitable for stable are merged into mainline, having the ability to spot them is useful, whether it is for later inclusion or just for users who'd like to run a kernel with more fixes than the critical ones accepted for stable. > Don't add another tag that requires users to dig for fixes that we are > just too lazy to be including for all users, that way is crazy. I don't think so. If there is a gap between what is fixed and what is acceptable for -stable, this just fills this gap. It means less automatic submissions for -stable, only the important ones, and at the same time, a simple way of more easily spotting if a known bug affects your kernel when you're a -stable user and are experiencing an issue. Willy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/