Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Aug 2013 23:00:08 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: Proposed stable release changes |
| |
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:16:00PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > And I pushed back on that. Which specific stable patch should _not_ > have been included?
Well, here's one for example:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?id=f0a56c480196a98479760862468cc95879df3de0 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=717473#54
I decided not to tag it for stable, even though Ben wanted it, just because it is the first bug report for this and it was caused by a pretty unusual hardware configuration. It simply wasn't important enough to need to add it to stable, IMO.
So basically the rules at the beginning of Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt didn't really apply and that's why I held off on it.
And I'm pretty sure I've seen similar minor issues like that simply "automatically" tagged for stable - I just don't have more concrete examples right now.
> I am going to be pickier (and already have, as some maintainers have > found out), with what I accept, but so far, the number of patches I've > rejected can be counted on one hand, a very small percentage of the > overall number of stable patches.
Ok, fair enough. I mean, in the end of the day, it is less work for you and for distro people. And more importantly, less unnecessary work. :-)
Thanks.
| |