Subject: Re: [RFC] -stable, how it's going to work.
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Chris Wright <chrisw@osdl.org>,
       torvalds@osdl.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <m1sm35w3am.fsf@muc.de>
References: <20050309072833.GA18878@kroah.com>  <m1sm35w3am.fsf@muc.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:10:59 +0100
Message-Id: <1110363060.6280.74.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1381
Lines: 36

On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 10:56 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> One rule I'm missing:
> 
> - It must be accepted to mainline. 
> 

I absolutely agree with Andi on this one.


> If a mainline patch violates too many of your other rules
> ("Fixes one thing; doesn't do cosmetic changes etc.") perhaps
> the mainline patch just needs to be improved.
> 

I can see this as getting an exception occasionally, but it should be a
well thought out exception and not a general rule

> >  - Security patches will be accepted into the -stable tree directly from
> >    the security kernel team, and not go through the normal review cycle.
> >    Contact the kernel security team for more details on this procedure.
> 
> This also sounds like a bad rule. How come the security team has more
> competence to review patches than the subsystem maintainers?  I can
> see the point of overruling maintainers on security issues when they
> are not responsive, but if they are I think the should be still the
> main point of contact.

yeah; the security patch is public anyway, so why not have the regular
review on it as well? Why would such a patch be special?


-
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/