Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:16:00 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: Proposed stable release changes |
| |
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:07:03PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:58:16PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > The point I'm making, we should be more reluctant in pulling patches > > into stable as quick as we are. A patch ideally should simmer in > > linux-next for a bit, then go into mainline. > > Oh, and it is really debatable if the sheer volume of -stable patches is > actually warranted - several people already raised the question whether > we should be more conservative with the stable tag. But you're probably > going to have this as one of the topics at KS...
And I pushed back on that. Which specific stable patch should _not_ have been included?
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.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |