[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ 3.8.y.z extended stable ] Linux stable review
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 11:37 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Kamal Mostafa <> wrote:
> > This is the start of the review cycle for the Linux stable kernel.
> Would anybody be interested in adding some sort of "stable" tag to the
> subject lines of stable backport patches, e.g., instead of:
> [PATCH 001/104] htb: fix sign extension bug
> something like:
> [STABLE 001/104] htb: fix sign extension bug
> I don't mind having the stable patches on LKML, but it would be nice
> if it were easier to distinguish stable backports from new patches. I
> know the patches are nicely threaded behind this message, but some
> readers don't really pay attention to that.

I agree that some distinction is needed, but I'm not convinced about
that precise format. I don't think it's worth including version
components after the stable base version e.g. 3.2. And I think that
including the version is a big enough clue that this is for a stable
branch and not mainline.

So I've changed my review script to put a subject prefix of 'PATCH 3.2'
before the patch number (and similarly in the cover letter). But if
there's consensus that a more explicit tag is wanted then I'll follow


Ben Hutchings
Horngren's Observation:
Among economists, the real world is often a special case.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-18 03:41    [W:0.413 / U:2.156 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site