On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 06:43:06PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote: > I understand you use 'stable' as guarantee, and I know it works, but > do you *need* this guarantee? > > And before you go on why you need this guarantee to avoid fixes to be > lost, this is an *entirely different thing*; we are not talking about > fixes in 'stable' that don't exist in mainline--for which there is > evidence that those caused problems in the past, we are talking about > reverting patches from 'stable' that are not part of the upstream > release from where the 'stable' branch was forked--*nobody* has showed > any evidence that this has happened before and caused issues. Why make a special case for the version from which stable was derived ? That doesn't make sense at all to me since by definition, *all* patches that are in stable were not in this version ! Take it simpler if you want : *all* patches in stable need an upstream commit ID, whether they're backports or reverts. You don't revert a patch from stable, you backport a revert from upstream. Willy -- 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
