On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 11:37 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Kamal Mostafa <kamal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This is the start of the review cycle for the Linux 3.8.13.11 stable kernel.
>
> Would anybody be interested in adding some sort of "stable" tag to the
> subject lines of stable backport patches, e.g., instead of:
>
> [PATCH 001/104] htb: fix sign extension bug
>
> something like:
>
> [STABLE 3.8.13.11 001/104] htb: fix sign extension bug
>
> I don't mind having the stable patches on LKML, but it would be nice
> if it were easier to distinguish stable backports from new patches. I
> know the patches are nicely threaded behind this message, but some
> readers don't really pay attention to that.
I agree that some distinction is needed, but I'm not convinced about
that precise format. I don't think it's worth including version
components after the stable base version e.g. 3.2. And I think that
including the version is a big enough clue that this is for a stable
branch and not mainline.
So I've changed my review script to put a subject prefix of 'PATCH 3.2'
before the patch number (and similarly in the cover letter). But if
there's consensus that a more explicit tag is wanted then I'll follow
that.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
Horngren's Observation:
Among economists, the real world is often a special case.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part