On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:59:31PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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.
Right, so probably the commit message needs a mention of some of this
above as to explain why we're bending the stable rules... again.
But again, I don't see the need for the stable tag as distros can pick
up the patch without it - we do it all the time and RH too, I'm sure.
Adding the stable tag with a
huuge-exception-BUT-BUT-this-time-we-need-it-explanation just so to fit
some automation stuff is an overkill, if you ask me.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
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