Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 1 Jun 2008 12:34:37 +0200 | From | Sam Ravnborg <> | Subject | Re: m68k libc5 regression |
| |
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 02:41:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:22:05 +0200 Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 01:48:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:37:59 +0200 (CEST) Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > I shall merge this fix into my tree (y'know - the one where memory > > > > > management patches are hosted) and I'll get it into 2.6.26 and shall > > > > > offer it to the -stable team. This will cause me to get collisions > > > > > with the duplicated patch in linux-next but fortunately it is small. > > > > > This time. > > > > > > > > So what's the appropriate way to handle this? > > > > > > Well at least please reply letting people know what's happening with it. > > > > > > Ask me to merge it and remind me that it's needed in -stable. Or just > > > send the thing to Linus and -stable immediately. > > > > I recall adding: > > Cc: stable@kernel.org > > > > will automagically tell the stable team when this is > > merged and that it is a -stable candidate. > > > > Yup. Except I always use the <> wrappers around the email address. In > fact my scripts require that (and probably shouldn't). We don't seem > very consistent with that.
Email addresses are often verbatim copied from MAINTAINERS where we not yet have proper format (no <>). So relying on <> in Cc: is not good.
For stable on 20 where without <> since 2.6.20 compered to 291 with <>.
Sam
| |