lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-06-01 12:37    [W:1.192 / U:0.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site