Hi Guennadi, On Tue, Oct 30 2012, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >> In future, feel free to note the >> stable@ situation by adding: >> >> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [3.6] > > Hm, a bit confused. I seem to remember, that one of subsystem maintainers, > to whom I also submitted a patch, that should also have been forwarded to > stable, told me, that adding this "Cc: stable@..." tag was a task of > subsystem maintainers, in that case his task, and not of individual > submitters, which might only indicate their opinion in this respect. Am I > wrong? Oh, interesting; I haven't seen that complaint myself. I don't think there's a kernel-wide rule about this, but I might be wrong. Personally, I'm happy with receiving the stable@ tag because I like it when patch authors think about -stable and I want to encourage them to do so. (Often they know whether a patch is needed in -stable better than I do.) Of course, the stable@ team isn't going to do anything until the patch enters mainline, and the patch is only going to enter mainline through my tree after I've had a chance to change the stable@ tag if necessary, so there's no problem for me there. Sorry to leave you in the middle of conflicting advice. :-) The stable@ hint is appreciated in either form; I was just trying to save you some typing. Thanks! - Chris. -- Chris Ball <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx> <http://printf.net/> One Laptop Per Child -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
