On Fri, 2013-07-12 at 15:35 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > So the problem is that maintainers are lazy. They don't want to go > back for bug fixes that have "proven" themselves, and even if they > aren't critical bug fixes, they are things which a distro maintainer > or a stable kernel user might want (and sometimes stable uers are > uppity enough to expect subsystem maintainers to do this back > porting). So subsystem maintainers then react by marking submits for > stable even though they really should soak for a release or two before > submitting them, since by marking them as submit, the commit gets > pushed to stable automatically --- albeit early. Actually, this is a very good point. There were one or two stable patches I had pushed to linux-next that I wasn't too comfortable about. If the fix goes back to older trees, I rather have them stirring in linux-next and push it in the next merge window instead of pushing it to Linus and have it go to stable immediately. Unless its a obvious fix, I tend to take about a month from the time I get a stable fix to the time I push it out. Making sure the stable fix doesn't introduce new bugs. -- Steve -- 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