On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 05:13:42PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 07/15/2013 04:22 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > ... and yet another opportunity for things to fall between the cracks, > which is in my opinion MUCH more likely than something inappropriate > being tagged Cc: stable. > > However, it doesn't seem to happen too often, but it does underscore the > need for a maintainer to be able to *retroactively* NAK a patch for > stable, if it is uncovered that it isn't appropriate after all. I give maintainers 2 different chances to NAK a patch, and if they miss those, I can also easily revert a patch that got applied and do a new release, which I have done in the past. greg k-h -- 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