Re: Proposed stable release changes

[Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:16:00PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> And I pushed back on that. Which specific stable patch should _not_
> have been included?

Well, here's one for example:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?id=f0a56c480196a98479760862468cc95879df3de0
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=717473#54

I decided not to tag it for stable, even though Ben wanted it, just
because it is the first bug report for this and it was caused by a
pretty unusual hardware configuration. It simply wasn't important enough
to need to add it to stable, IMO.

So basically the rules at the beginning of
Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt didn't really apply and that's why
I held off on it.

And I'm pretty sure I've seen similar minor issues like that simply
"automatically" tagged for stable - I just don't have more concrete
examples right now.

> I am going to be pickier (and already have, as some maintainers have
> found out), with what I accept, but so far, the number of patches I've
> rejected can be counted on one hand, a very small percentage of the
> overall number of stable patches.

Ok, fair enough. I mean, in the end of the day, it is less work for you
and for distro people. And more importantly, less unnecessary work. :-)

Thanks.