On 07/15/2013 04:22 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> I agree, _should_. But again, that is not the point I was trying to make.
> The keyword is _active_ decision vs. passive acceptance of a stable tag.
>
> If the stable tag is not added by the maintainer, it can always be added to
> the stable queue after the code was pushed upstream. Nothing lost but a bit
> of convenience.
>
... and yet another opportunity for things to fall between the cracks,
which is in my opinion MUCH more likely than something inappropriate
being tagged Cc: stable.
However, it doesn't seem to happen too often, but it does underscore the
need for a maintainer to be able to *retroactively* NAK a patch for
stable, if it is uncovered that it isn't appropriate after all.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
