On 07/15/2013 03:07 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 11:04:28PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: >> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 13:19 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>> That seems to be a bit drastic. It is quite useful to have the tag, >>> but maybe it should only be added by the maintainer and not in the initial >>> patch submission. This would ensure that the maintainer(s) made the decision. >>> If the original patch submitter thinks that the patch is stable material, >>> that information could be added in the comments section. >> >> In the case where a maintainer applies a patch with 'git am', surely >> they can *see* that it's cc:stable? >> > If that maintainer is careful, yes. But that isn't the point or idea. The > difference is that the maintainer would have to make an active decision > to add the cc:stable tag vs. just going along with it. > WTF? If a maintainer applies a patch and misses that the thing had a Cc: <stable> tag, that maintainer should never have applied the patch in the first place. It gets stickier in the case of submaintainers where there are git pulls involved. -hpa -- 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