On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 01:16:00PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > And I pushed back on that. Which specific stable patch should _not_ > have been included? Well, here's one for example: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?id=f0a56c480196a98479760862468cc95879df3de0 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=717473#54 I decided not to tag it for stable, even though Ben wanted it, just because it is the first bug report for this and it was caused by a pretty unusual hardware configuration. It simply wasn't important enough to need to add it to stable, IMO. So basically the rules at the beginning of Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt didn't really apply and that's why I held off on it. And I'm pretty sure I've seen similar minor issues like that simply "automatically" tagged for stable - I just don't have more concrete examples right now. > 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. Ok, fair enough. I mean, in the end of the day, it is less work for you and for distro people. And more importantly, less unnecessary work. :-) Thanks. -- 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