[ about -stable merge policy ]
* Jiri Slaby <[email protected]> wrote:
> > We try to concentrate on regression fixes though.
>
> Hi, I cannot fully agree with this. The question is who are "we" here?
It's the upstream policy and the scheduler tree certainly follows it.
I think i remember Linus having stated it before (cannot find the mail), but
it's
pretty common-sense so easy to reproduce (i've Cc:-ed Linus in case he wants to
chime in):
The idea is to treat Linus's tree and -stable as an organic whole: so -stable
is upstream as well, but with *bug* fixes backported. It's emphatically not
a
separate "for backporting interesting/important bits" tree.
And as such whatever a maintainer can send to Linus in -rc's (in particular
late
-rc's) is -stable eligible.
For the rest of patches: generally not eligible, but with common-sense
exceptions.
"It's a nice patch" or "it will obviously not cause problems" or "this is
important to us" does not make a patch eligible for -stable.
Adding a -stable tag to a commit and *not* sending it to Linus for the next
-rc
also makes a patch almost automatically *not* eligible: if it was not
important
enough to have it in the next -rc then it's doubly not eligible for -stable
...
I think this common-sense rule is easy to follow:
" If you ever have to ask yourself whether a patch queued up for -stable is
really -stable eligible it probably isnt. "
It's called -stable for a reason.
Thanks,
Ingo
_______________________________________________
stable mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/stable
