On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 01:24 -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Hi James, > > James Bottomley wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 03:59 -0500, CAI Qian wrote: > > >> Thanks for commenting, James. I was asked to get an ACK from the > >> maintainers > >> before Greg taking it in that is why I sent this email to you guys for > >> confirmation. > > > > OK, I've cc'd Greg, because I don't think thay should be the process. > > Here's the context: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1406955 > > It's not the general process --- it's a sanity check to get some early > filtering for patches that stable@ was otherwise receiving unvetted. :/
Well, that's fine, but it's still not right: I deal with upstream. If people have bugs in non-upstream versions, we usually tell them either to verify its still present in upstream or report it to their distro. In most cases I never see the bugs, only the distros do. In all cases, that makes the distro maintainers far better qualified than me to judge if something needs backporting because they'll be the ones who root caused the problem. If you want vetting, ask the distro guys to provide a URL with the bug report. > The usual process is for a person proposing a patch for inclusion to > mention the rationale and cc relevant people so they can object. I'm happy to be on the cc for objections or comments, I just don't want to be frontline approver for this, since most of the time I won't have the context. James > [...] > > I didn't think it would be seen in prior kernels. If you've seen it in > > testing 3.4, then I'd say that's good enough for me. > > Qian, have you had reports of this bug on 3.4.y or older? > > Thanks, both, > Jonathan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
