Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 23 Oct 2008 07:06:25 +0200 | From | Willy Tarreau <> | Subject | Re: [patch 00/17] 2.6.27-stable review |
| |
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 09:01:26PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > 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?
3 definitely is "oh that's not good", and 16&17 are just support for a few new IDs. It's not the first time this happens, and as long as there are not too many or they don't change the driver's code, I don't see the problem. It increases the ability for people to test the kernel and report bugs too BTW.
I think it's better to have strict rules and be lax sometimes than having no rules at all or being too strict and annoy users.
Willy
| |