Am 09.02.2011 15:09, schrieb Justin M. Forbes: > On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 14:52 +0100, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Hi Justin, >> >> Am 08.02.2011 15:12, schrieb Markus Armbruster: >>> Markus Armbruster (2): >>> blockdev: Plug memory leak in drive_uninit() >>> blockdev: Plug memory leak in drive_init() error paths >>> >>> blockdev.c | 12 ++++++++++-- >>> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> How this series made its way into stable was a bit surprising for me. >> You may not be aware yet of the expectations that I (and probably >> others) have in the process of patches being applied to stable. No harm >> done, but maybe something to consider for future patches, so let me just >> mention some points: >> >> I saw that you already merged these patches into the stable tree, even >> though they are not master yet. I think usually stable should only get >> cherry-picks from master. There are exceptions of course (e.g. when >> something will be fixed differently in master), but I don't think this >> is one of them. >> >> Also I noticed that you didn't add your Signed-off-by when applying the >> patches. As I understand it, you should do this for any patch that you >> apply directly (i.e. that you don't get via a git pull) >> >> I only caught this by chance. If you sent an email ("Thanks, applied to >> ...") after you have applied a patch or pulled from somewhere, it would >> be more obvious to the rest of us what happens in stable. > > Indeed, that was my fault... I had applied them for testing, and pushed > to the wrong tree. I have made some local changes to insure that this > does not happen in the future.
Okay, if it was an accident, no problem. I was just trying to make sure that we're all having the same expectation of how it should work. Kevin