On 2013/7/17 4:10, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 03:43:09PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 12:11 -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> >>> People mark stable patches that way already today with a: >>> Cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # delay for 3.12-rc4 >>> or some such wording. I take those and don't apply them until the noted >>> release happens, so you can do this if needed. But this is not documented in stable_kernel_rules.txt. And it's not handled by your automatic scripts? >> >> I guess the thing is, are stable patches prone to regressions. Do we >> just do that for patches that we think are too complex and may cause >> some harm. Of course, there's the question about having a clue about >> what patches might cause harm or not. > > We'd probably better switch the tag to be "# now" to imply that we don't > want to delay them, and that by default those merged prior to rc4 are all > postponed. I suspect that the switching could be mostly automated this way, > avoiding to add burden to Greg : > > - if commit ID >= -rc4 > move to immediate queue, it's a "critical" fix as per Linus' rules > > - if Cc: stable line has "now" at the end, move to immediate queue as > the maintainer takes this reponsibility ; > > - otherwise move to the next .2 queue. > I like the idea of postpone stable patches by default. -- 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