On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 11:29 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Anyway, the point I'm making is that Q&A is limited and often even
> actively misleading ("Hey, I have three tested-by's, so it must be
> fine"), and we might actually want to have a new class of
> "non-critical patch that might be worth backporting to stable, but
> only do so after it's been in a release for some time". Because while
> it might be an "obvious" fix, maybe it's not critical enough that it
> needs to be backported _now_ - maybe it could wait a month or two, and
> get wider testing.
Should we add another stable tag?
Have the default Cc: stable have to wait a rc or two in mainline before
it makes its way to the stable tree. Have a stable-critical for those
that are bugs that are security fixes than need to be backported ASAP.
-- 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