Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756757AbZKJPwZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:52:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756594AbZKJPwY (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:52:24 -0500 Received: from hp3.statik.tu-cottbus.de ([141.43.120.68]:41353 "EHLO hp3.statik.tu-cottbus.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756396AbZKJPwY (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:52:24 -0500 Message-ID: <4AF98C36.9040405@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:52:22 +0100 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090825 SeaMonkey/1.1.18 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Bottomley CC: Greg KH , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Chris Wright , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC] new -stable tag variant, Git workflow question References: <20091110034831.GB26809@elte.hu> <20091110041452.GA25575@suse.de> <1257863388.4184.220.camel@mulgrave.site> In-Reply-To: <1257863388.4184.220.camel@mulgrave.site> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1376 Lines: 33 James Bottomley wrote: [...] >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 04:48:31AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> > FYI, today i committed a scheduler performance fix that has a number of >> > commit prerequisites for -stable integration. Those commits are not >> > marked -stable. [...] >> > we can move this into the Git commit space too, and minimize the >> > work for the -stable team, via a new -stable tag variant. [...] > The question is, how important is this? > > One of the assumptions behind the current setup is that I assume > backports are independent (so the order of transmission doesn't matter > that much). This isn't always true, but the exceptions tend to get > handled manually. Part of what the above is requesting is an > implementation that starts to care about ordering. More importantly, isn't this against the character of the -stable kernel branches as _safe and simple_ hotfix branches? If a fix has a number of prerequisites which ar not -stable fixes themselves, then it is more than a hint that this fix is not really well suited for -stable. -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--= =-== -=-=- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ -- 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/