On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:38 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:36:26PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > FWIW, I brought this up already at KS 2016, see Jon's coverage here: > > > > https://lwn.net/Articles/705220/ > > > > My primary motivation to bring that up back then was to try to reduce the > > number of patches that are taken into -stable while there is no good > > justification for that (by requiring each and every of those having Fixes: > > present as a requirement), but it didn't really lead anywhere. > > Ah, I didn't get that you were trying to suggest that things only go > into stable if it has both Fixes: *and* Cc: Stable. > > If that's the problem you were trying to solve, perhaps we could ask > Stephen Rothwell if he would be willing to run a script that sends > nag-o-grams to Maintainers who incluce patches in linux-next that have > Cc: stable but neither Fixes nor a "# 4.x" appended to the end of the > Cc: stable line? > Patches adding new PCI/USB/ACPI IDs or DMI quirks are usually accepted into stable but normally lack "Fixes" tag. Thanks. -- Dmitry
