On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 03:38:08PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > 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. > I agree, _should_. But again, that is not the point I was trying to make. The keyword is _active_ decision vs. passive acceptance of a stable tag. If the stable tag is not added by the maintainer, it can always be added to the stable queue after the code was pushed upstream. Nothing lost but a bit of convenience. Guenter -- 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