On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 02:41:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:22:05 +0200 Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 01:48:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:37:59 +0200 (CEST) Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I shall merge this fix into my tree (y'know - the one where memory
management patches are hosted) and I'll get it into 2.6.26 and shall
offer it to the -stable team. This will cause me to get collisions
with the duplicated patch in linux-next but fortunately it is small.
This time.
So what's the appropriate way to handle this?
Well at least please reply letting people know what's happening with it.
Ask me to merge it and remind me that it's needed in -stable. Or just
send the thing to Linus and -stable immediately.
I recall adding:
Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx
will automagically tell the stable team when this is
merged and that it is a -stable candidate.
Yup. Except I always use the <> wrappers around the email address. In
fact my scripts require that (and probably shouldn't). We don't seem
very consistent with that.
Email addresses are often verbatim copied from MAINTAINERS
where we not yet have proper format (no <>).
So relying on <> in Cc: is not good.
For stable on 20 where without <> since 2.6.20 compered to
291 with <>.
Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
