Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] -stable, how it's going to work. | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:10:59 +0100 |
| |
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 10:56 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > One rule I'm missing: > > - It must be accepted to mainline. >
I absolutely agree with Andi on this one.
> If a mainline patch violates too many of your other rules > ("Fixes one thing; doesn't do cosmetic changes etc.") perhaps > the mainline patch just needs to be improved. >
I can see this as getting an exception occasionally, but it should be a well thought out exception and not a general rule
> > - Security patches will be accepted into the -stable tree directly from > > the security kernel team, and not go through the normal review cycle. > > Contact the kernel security team for more details on this procedure. > > This also sounds like a bad rule. How come the security team has more > competence to review patches than the subsystem maintainers? I can > see the point of overruling maintainers on security issues when they > are not responsive, but if they are I think the should be still the > main point of contact.
yeah; the security patch is public anyway, so why not have the regular review on it as well? Why would such a patch be special?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |