On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 21:15 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > One thing I don't particularly like about this is having to resend the > patches in response to mail; it seems cumbersome to do that rather than > reply to mail or something. Requiring a positive acknowledgement or > action seems useful but the particular one seems a bit annoying; I'd > rather either just send the patch as part of the mark for stable > workflow or ack something in mail.
A reply to the email before it goes in would work as well. I'm just saying that the stable tag alone should not be the criteria of what goes into stable. > > > Also, we could mandate that the maintainers do the backports too. > > That's what happens already isn't it? Only if it breaks. But I've been quite impressed at a lot of the patches that Greg seems to get working himself. He gets things backported that don't look to be automated. I guess if it's trivial enough he does the work himself. But I've had a few commits where I thought for sure I would get a slew of "FAILED to apply" stable messages that ended up going in without my help. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/