On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:07:03PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:58:16PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > The point I'm making, we should be more reluctant in pulling patches > > into stable as quick as we are. A patch ideally should simmer in > > linux-next for a bit, then go into mainline. > > Oh, and it is really debatable if the sheer volume of -stable patches is > actually warranted - several people already raised the question whether > we should be more conservative with the stable tag. But you're probably > going to have this as one of the topics at KS... And I pushed back on that. Which specific stable patch should _not_ have been included? I am going to be pickier (and already have, as some maintainers have found out), with what I accept, but so far, the number of patches I've rejected can be counted on one hand, a very small percentage of the overall number of stable patches. 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