* Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:00:30PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Not serious, but from a distro perspective it would really be nice to
> > have. We get queries on why it's an error and where are the firmware
> > files for family 16h, etc. Explaining it can get tiring ;).
>
> I know that - that's the reason why Thomas is doing it. But a distro can
> pick it up without the stable tag.
I think here we could apply the -stable tag as a super special exception,
because:
1) it arguably annoys/confuses a largish class of users into
thinking their hardware or distro is possibly defective
2) the patch came from a distro maintainer
3) the patch is a oneliner change to a kernel string which
really cannot possibly break anything
But yeah, in the general case I'd agree with you, it takes a serious bug
with serious consequences to be marked -stable. But the boundaries are
(intentionally) grey so we can apply situational discretion to achive a
better end result.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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