On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 03:48:14AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Sat, 7 Jul 2012, Aaro Koskinen wrote: > > > > I couldn't remember whether the canonical marking is stable@xxxxxxxxxx > > > or stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, so I went looking, and discovered that it > > > wasn't mentioned in the kernel sources. You can find mention of it in > > > Greg K-H's blog, but not everyone would necessarily find this blog > > > entry. > > > > It's documented in Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt. > > > > I'm wondering if it would be helpful to the stable maintainers if we > explicitly asked that patches including "Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" also > include the version number of the earliest version that the change should > be backported to? It can be helpful, and in fact, is what is described in the above file already, although it is often overlooked as it is only part of an example. But really, it's usually not needed, I'm more interested in getting more maintainers to actually start marking patches for stable, that's the larger problem we are dealing with. Sorting out after-the-fact which kernel version a patch is to be applied to is much simpler than finding the patches in the first place. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
