From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161089Ab2COQ5r (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:57:47 -0400 Received: from mail-iy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:35056 "EHLO mail-iy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161055Ab2COQ5o (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2012 12:57:44 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:57:36 -0500 From: Jonathan Nieder To: Chris Frey Cc: Greg KH , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 3.0.24 Message-ID: <20120315165736.GA11496@burratino> References: <20120312203451.GA16773@kroah.com> <20120315162322.GA26005@foursquare.net> <20120315163749.GA25001@kroah.com> <20120315165108.GA27737@foursquare.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120315165108.GA27737@foursquare.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Chris Frey wrote: > Perhaps it would help if I phrased my question differently: What kind of > bug makes you decide to write "must" instead of something else? My impression is that Greg does not want to be in the business of deciding which updates are security-critical. Others can make that judgement based on the patches listed. "All users must upgrade" would generally mean that it is prudent for all users to upgrade, rather than some particular subset of them (e.g., users who have been experiencing build failures). Hope that helps, Jonathan