From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752105Ab3HUOUy (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:20:54 -0400 Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]:35490 "EHLO 1wt.eu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751663Ab3HUOUw (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Aug 2013 10:20:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:17:25 +0200 From: Willy Tarreau To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Josh Boyer , Greg KH , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , stable , lwn@lwn.net, Guenter Roeck , Hugh Dickins , Johannes Berg , Borislav Petkov , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Proposed stable release changes Message-ID: <20130821141725.GB20685@1wt.eu> References: <20130820224032.GA20491@kroah.com> <20130820235700.GA7209@kroah.com> <20130821134248.GB16493@home.goodmis.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130821134248.GB16493@home.goodmis.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 09:42:48AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Personally, I still let my stable patches that go into later -rc sit > in linux-next for a few days before pushing them to mainline. I may even > wait for the next -rc to push it just to make sure the patch wont cause > more issues. But I know others that just send the fix directly to > mainline without going through linux-next. Those, I would think, are the > most prone to cause issues in stable. This is also what I suspected though I have no data to confirm or deny that. If this happens to be the case, maybe then there should be some barrier such as : - everything merged at -rc4 or before gets backported after the next -rc - everything from -rc5 and upper waits for next -rc1 unless tagged urgent ? Willy