Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2006 10:17:53 +0000
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.16.30-pre1
Message-ID: <20060924101753.GB4813@ucw.cz>
References: <20060922222300.GA5566@stusta.de> <20060922223859.GB21772@kroah.com> <20060922224735.GB5566@stusta.de> <20060922230928.GB22830@kroah.com> <20060923045610.GM541@1wt.eu> <20060923232150.GK5566@stusta.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20060923232150.GK5566@stusta.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1173
Lines: 30

Hi!

> > Adrian, when you have a doubt whether such a fix should go into next
> > release, simply tell people about the problem and ask them to test
> > current driver. If nobody encounters the problem, you can safely keep
> > the patch in your fridge until someone complains. By that time, the
> > risks associated with this patch will be better known.
> 
> It's not that I wanted to upgrade ACPI to the latest version.
> 
> And my rules are:
> - patch must be in Linus' tree
> - I'm asking the patch authors and maintainers of the affected subsystem
>   whether the patch is OK for 2.6.16

I thought stable rules were longer than this... including 'patch must
be < 100 lines' and 'must be bugfix for serious bug'. Changing rules
for -stable series in the middle of it seems like a bad idea...

Maybe you can keep -ab with relaxed rules and -stable with original
rules?

							Pavel
-- 
Thanks for all the (sleeping) penguins.
-
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/