On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:36:26PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> FWIW, I brought this up already at KS 2016, see Jon's coverage here:
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/705220/
>
> My primary motivation to bring that up back then was to try to reduce the
> number of patches that are taken into -stable while there is no good
> justification for that (by requiring each and every of those having Fixes:
> present as a requirement), but it didn't really lead anywhere.
Ah, I didn't get that you were trying to suggest that things only go
into stable if it has both Fixes: *and* Cc: Stable.
If that's the problem you were trying to solve, perhaps we could ask
Stephen Rothwell if he would be willing to run a script that sends
nag-o-grams to Maintainers who incluce patches in linux-next that have
Cc: stable but neither Fixes nor a "# 4.x" appended to the end of the
Cc: stable line?
- Ted
