On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:10:31AM +0400, James Bottomley wrote: > On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 17:06 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 06:01:39PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 14:44 -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > > > I don't like this at all, just for the simple reason that it will push > > > > the majority of the work of stable kernel development on to the > > > > subsystem maintainers, who have enough work to do as it is. > > > > > > > > Stable tree stuff should cause almost _no_ extra burden on the kernel > > > > developers, because it is something that I, and a few other people, have > > > > agreed to do with our time. It has taken me 8 _years_ to finally get > > > > maintainers to agree to mark stuff for the stable tree, and fine-tune a > > > > development process that makes it easy for us to do this backport work. > > > > > > Although, since those 8 years, the stable tree has proven its > > > importance. > > > > > > Is a extra "ack" also too much to ask? > > > > Maintainers are our most limited resource, I'm getting their "ack" when > > they themselves tag the patch to be backported with the Cc: line. > > > > I then cc: them when the patch goes into the patch queue. > > > > I then cc: them again when the patch is in the -rc1 phase. > > > > How many times do I need to do this to give people a chance to say > > "nak"? > > Just to pick up on this, the problem from my perspective is that this > cc: goes into my personal inbox. From a list perspective this just > doesn't work. The entirety of my workflow is set up to operate from the > mailing lists. My inbox is for my day job. It gets about 100 emails or > more a day and anything that goes in there and doesn't get looked at for > a day gets lost. I sometimes feel guilty about seeing stable reviews > whiz by, but not necessarily guilty enough to go back and try to find > them. I have thought of using filtering to manually place these into a > deferred mailbox for later use. However, the problem is that my work > inbox is exchange, and the only tags I could filter on seem to be in the > body (exchange does body filtering about as elegantly as a penguin > flies). > > That's where the suggestion to drop cc: stable@ came from. I realise > the workflow just isn't working for me. > > I say we have the discussion at KS then I'll investigate a different > workflow for SCSI. KS is in November, feel free to not tag patches Cc: stable for scsi if you don't want to use the existing workflow, and try something else now. All I need, at the least, is a list of git ids to apply to the stable tree(s), send them to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and I can take it from there with my tools. If you want to test things separately, send me a tree to pull, or a mbox to apply, that works as well. You can do all of these without having to wait until November. thanks, 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