Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933597Ab3GPSl2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:41:28 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:9585 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754926Ab3GPSl0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:41:26 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Tr1kdUrh c=1 sm=0 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:17 a=Drc5e87SC40A:10 a=HICIQ9bjhMYA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=KGjhK52YXX0A:10 a=PINbNDQYIjoA:10 a=FVbBZQTZ-KdV-D4Qd6kA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 67.255.60.225 Message-ID: <1374000084.6458.36.camel@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] When to push bug fixes to mainline From: Steven Rostedt To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Luck, Tony" , David Lang , "ksummit-2013-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "stable@vger.kernel.org" , Willy Tarreau Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:41:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <20130711214830.611455274@linuxfoundation.org> <20130712005023.GB31005@thunk.org> <20130712051451.GC25815@1wt.eu> <20130716165933.GU22506@sirena.org.uk> <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F31C845B1@ORSMSX106.amr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1068 Lines: 25 On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 11:29 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Anyway, the point I'm making is that Q&A is limited and often even > actively misleading ("Hey, I have three tested-by's, so it must be > fine"), and we might actually want to have a new class of > "non-critical patch that might be worth backporting to stable, but > only do so after it's been in a release for some time". Because while > it might be an "obvious" fix, maybe it's not critical enough that it > needs to be backported _now_ - maybe it could wait a month or two, and > get wider testing. Should we add another stable tag? Have the default Cc: stable have to wait a rc or two in mainline before it makes its way to the stable tree. Have a stable-critical for those that are bugs that are security fixes than need to be backported ASAP. -- Steve -- 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/