From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760662Ab0JIXjI (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Oct 2010 19:39:08 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:59719 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757324Ab0JIXjF (ORCPT ); Sat, 9 Oct 2010 19:39:05 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: stable cc's in linux -next was Re: [BUG] x86: bootmem broken on SGI UV Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 01:38:17 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.36-rc7-rjw+; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Dave Airlie , "linux-kernel" , Stephen Rothwell , "Greg Kroah-Hartman" References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201010100138.18129.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday, October 10, 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Dave Airlie wrote: > > > > Do we track people dong this at all? I wonder how many patches in > > linux-next have cc: stable in them but haven't been submitted to > > Linus, > > The other side of that coin is to wonder how many patches get marked > as "stable" when they definitely shouldn't be. > > I know that's a non-empty set. Too many developers think that the > thing they fix is so important that it needs to be backported. And it > doesn't help that Greg is sometimes over-eager to take things without > them being even in my tree long enough to get much testing. > > Quite frankly, if somebody has something in "next" (and really meant > for the _next_ merge window, not the current one) that is marked for > stable, I think that shows uncommonly bad taste. And that, in turn, > means that the "stable" tag is also very debatable. It clearly cannot > be important enough to really be for stable if it's not even being > aggressively pushed into the current -rc. Well, I know of at least one regression fix that is waiting in linux-next for the upcoming merge window and it most likely is tagged as -stable material. The problem with the "stable" tag is that people have to add it before the patch is put into their non-rebasing branches, which makes it appear in linux-next before it goes to your tree. This tag is arguably convenient for Greg, because it allows him to automatically cherry-pick "stable" candidates from the mainline, though. Thanks, Rafael