On 01/13/2014 12:22 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 3:04 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 01/13/2014 05:32 AM, Luis Henriques wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 09:03:39PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >>>> Hi guys, >>>> >>>> 26bef1318adc1b3a530ecc807ef99346db2aa8b0 should have been tagged for >>>> stable, but it wasn't. The bug in question dates back to ancient times; >>>> I expect it should apply without problems to any still supported tree. >>>> >>> >>> Thank you, I'm queuing it for the 3.5 and 3.11 kernels. >>> >> >> Incidentally, is there any reasons your patchsets/trees are: >> >> a) not hosted on kernel.org, >> b) uses a 3.x.y.z convention instead of 3.x.y? >> >> It seems like completely needless fragmentation, especially since as far >> as I can tell, you are always putting things at the end of the >> "upstream" stable series (i.e. you don't end up with both 3.5.9.1 and >> 3.5.10). > > I asked Luis about this a while ago and he said he'd be happy to via > Greg's tree: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1604908/focus=1605218 > > Greg never replied (possibly because he wasn't on CC but I don't remember). > Greg? Either way, it wouldn't even have to be in the main stable tree... we actually can do more than one tree on kernel.org and still get all the machinery there to do the right things. -hpa -- 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