On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 11:37:33PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > - Show quoted text - > > On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 10:44:40PM -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> >> > >> >> While extending the documentation for submitting Linux wireless bug > >> >> reports [1] we note the stable series policy on patches -- that of > >> >> having an equivalent fix already in Linus' tree. I find this > >> >> documented in Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt but I'm curious if > >> >> there is any other resource which documents this or elaborates on this > >> >> a bit more. I often tell people about this rule or push _really_ hard > >> >> on testing "upstream" but some people tend to not understand. I think > >> >> that elaborating a little on this can help and will hopefully create > >> >> more awareness around the importance of trees like Stephen's > >> >> linux-next tree. > >> > > >> > Just have people google for GregKH's copious messages, telling people a fix > >> > needs to be upstream before it goes into -stable. > >> > > >> > Typically you make things easy by emailing stable@xxxxxxxxxx with a commit > >> > id. > >> > > >> > There are only two exceptions: > >> > * fix is upstream, but needs to be modified for -stable > >> > * fix is not needed at all in upstream, but -stable still needs it > >> > >> This certainly helps, I'm also looking for good arguments to support > >> the reasoning behind the policy so that not only will people follow > >> this to help development but _understand_ it and so that they can > >> themselves promote things like linux-next and realize why its so > >> important. Mind you -- upstream for us in wireless for example is not > >> Linus its John's tree so what we promote is not to get the fix first > >> into Linus' tree but first into John's tree. Which is obvious to > >> developers but perhaps not to others. > > > > Who are these "people" that you are trying to convince? > > OK small silly example is convincing distributions it may be a good > idea to carry linux-next kernel packages as options to users to > hopefully down the road reduce the delta between what they carry and > what is actually upstream. Woah! You started out talking about -stable, and now you are trying to use that as a reason for a distro to carry -next? Those are on the totally different end of the spectrum. It's up to the individual distros if they want to carry portions of -next (and if you look, they all carry some parts, due to different reasons). thanks, greg k-h -- 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
