On Sun, 2016-03-06 at 14:17 -0500, Sasha Levin wrote: > On 03/05/2016 08:24 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hi Sasha, > > > > The following series contains v4.1.y stable backports for a number > > of target patches from upstream code, that don't appear in your > > stable tree. > > > > Also included is a small complile fix specific to v4.1.y code. > > > > Please apply at your earliest convience. > > Thanks Nicholas, I've added both series to their corresponding trees. > > > Btw, I didn't seen any 'failed to apply' messages from you for > > any of these patches, which is how I tell from Greg-KH when > > something needs to be manually backported. > > > > Is there a reason for not sending out 'failed to apply' emails..? > > Good point. Since I was only maintaining 3.18 so far, I'd wait for > maintainers to respond to Greg's mails about failure to apply on either > 4.1 or 3.14, and just take their backport from there - which did the trick, > and also reduced the amount of mails maintainers get regarding -stable trees. > Sure, thanks for the extra background. > > I don't have a problem with starting to send "F-T-A" mails as well, but I > wonder if we can somehow coordinate these mails between myself and Greg > so we won't send one for each and every kernel version, but rather one > specifying which stable versions failed to apply? So the process bug is when patches apply cleanly to Greg's stable trees, but do not apply to 4.1.y. Perhaps a F-T-A email only when the patch applied cleanly to Greg's (oldest) tree, but not 4.1.y or older..? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html