On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 11:37 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Kamal Mostafa <[email protected]> wrote: > > This is the start of the review cycle for the Linux 3.8.13.11 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 3.8.13.11 001/104] 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
that.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Horngren's Observation:
Among economists, the real world is often a special case.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
