Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Oct 2010 16:51:41 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: stable cc's in linux -next was Re: [BUG] x86: bootmem broken on SGI UV |
| |
On Sat, Oct 09, 2010 at 04:24:59PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Dave Airlie <airlied@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Do we track people dong this at all? I wonder how many patches in > > linux-next have cc: stable in them but haven't been submitted to > > Linus, > > The other side of that coin is to wonder how many patches get marked > as "stable" when they definitely shouldn't be. > > I know that's a non-empty set. Too many developers think that the > thing they fix is so important that it needs to be backported. And it > doesn't help that Greg is sometimes over-eager to take things without > them being even in my tree long enough to get much testing.
That's a tough thing to judge as I usually batch up stable patches/releases every other week or so. This can cause some patches to be in your tree longer than others.
Should I just have a general "wait a week/release" type rule here before adding them to a stable tree for most patches that aren't "obvious"?
thanks,
greg k-h
| |