Hi Ted,
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 4:47 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 11:01:04AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > Because cc: stable came first, and for some reason people think that it
> > > is all that is necessary to get patches committed to the stable tree,
> > > despite it never being documented or that way. I have to correct
> > > someone about this about 2x a month on the stable@vger list.
> >
> > For a developer, it's much easier to not care about "Cc: stable"
> > at all, because as soon as you add a "Cc: stable" to a patch, or CC
> > stable, someone will compain ;-) Much easier to just add a Fixes: tag,
> > and know it will be backported to trees that have the "buggy" commit.
>
> What sort of complaints have you gotten? I add "cc: stable" for the
> ext4 tree, and I can't say I've gotten any complaints.
Usually a complaint about using the wrong process for subsystem X.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
