Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:01:26 -0400 | From | Josh Boyer <> | Subject | Re: [patch 00/17] 2.6.27-stable review |
| |
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:33:34AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: >This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.27.3 release. >There are 17 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response >to this one. If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please >let us know. If anyone is a maintainer of the proper subsystem, and >wants to add a Signed-off-by: line to the patch, please respond with it. > >These patches are sent out with a number of different people on the >Cc: line. If you wish to be a reviewer, please email stable@kernel.org >to add your name to the list. If you want to be off the reviewer list, >also email us. > >Responses should be made by Wed, October 22, 2008 19:00:00 UTC. >Anything received after that time might be too late.
OK, I realize I'm late. Apologies in advance for that.
I don't see how patches 3, 16, and 17 really fit into the "stable" rules. None of them:
"... fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something critical."
So, are we being a bit more lax on the requirements for the -stable kernels and I missed the memo, or?
josh
| |