Quoting David Gibson (2016-10-24 20:41:29) > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:24:31PM -0500, Michael Roth wrote: > > Quoting Peter Maydell (2016-10-17 13:45:21) > > > On 17 October 2016 at 19:13, Michael Roth <mdr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > wrote: > > > > We could do both though: use some ad-hoc way to tag for a particular > > > > sub-maintainer tree/stable branch, as well as an explicit "not for > > > > master" in the cover letter ensure it doesn't go into master. It's a bit > > > > more redundant, but flexible in that people can use whatever tagging > > > > format they want for a particular tree. > > > > > > Yes, that would be my preference. Gmail's filtering is not > > > very good, and it doesn't seem to be able to support > > > multiple or complex matches on the subject line, but > > > it can deal with "doesn't include foo in body". > > > People who actively want to look for stuff not to go > > > into master can filter it however they like. > > > > Sounds good to me. For my part I think "for-2.7.1" etc. would be > > prefereable. No need to resend this patchset though. > > > > I suppose MAINTAINERS would be the best place to document something > > like this? > > So.. regardless of the outcome in general for future stable merges.. > > Has this batch been merged for 2.7 stable? Or do I need to resend it > in the new style?
No need to resend. I should have the initial staging tree for 2.7 posted by Monday and will have this included. > > -- > David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code > david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ > | _way_ _around_! > http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
