Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <4fbc9e89-24af-9d59-dab0-73925ac94df1@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Dec 2022 19:56:57 +0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.6.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: stable: Add rule on what kind of patches
 are accepted
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, sashal@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net
Cc:     stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, joneslee@google.com
References: <20221222091658.1975240-1-tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
From:   Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221222091658.1975240-1-tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12/22/22 16:16, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> The list of rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones
> are not into the “-stable” tree, did not mention anything about new
> features and let the reader use its own judgement. One may be under the
> impression that new features are not accepted at all, but that's not true:
> new features are not accepted unless they fix a reported problem.
> Update documentation with missing rule.
> 

Are there any other examples of problems that can "only" be solved by
introducing new features? Or new huge features that are virtually
harder to backport?

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara