On 6 November 2014 14:50, Ronald Wahl <ronald.wahl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 06.11.2014 14:14, Johannes Berg wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2014-11-06 at 14:07 +0100, Ronald Wahl wrote: >> >>> But there are LTS kernels not maintained by Greg like 3.12 and 3.16. How >>> about these? If sending patches to stable@kernel org is optional then >>> it's better to kill that list or silently drop emails send to this list >>> so no errors are returned for this address. >> >> >> They can pick it up the same way though, no? Actually I think they >> usually pick it up from Greg's tree anyway :) > > > "Can" and "do" are different things. And you "think" you know what others > people do but do you really "know" it? Anyway your original comment sounded > a bit like "avoid sending it to the stable kernel mailinglist otherwise > unwanted things might happen". In the end this raises the question why that > stable kernel mailing still list exists or why there is no general rule not > to send mails to it. > > So in the end that currently means that it is not wrong to send mail to > stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx but it is your opinion that it is just not really > necessary, right? > You used to get an autoreply like this when cc'ing stable@ directly """ <formletter> This is not the correct way to submit patches for inclusion in the stable kernel tree. Please read Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt for how to do this properly. </formletter> """ You are only supposed to send patches to the mailing list if they are already upstream, i.e., if you know the upstream commit id of the patch. -- Ard. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
