On 11/06/14 14:55, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
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.
Actually, adding the "Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" tag will assure that
Greg picks it up automatically from upstream thus no need to send the
patch to stable provided it will apply to stable trees as is.
Regards,
Arend
--
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
