[Ksummit-2012-discuss] [ATTEND] depth of our git tree structure; HID subsystem; kernel bugzilla; stable review

Guenter Roeck linux at roeck-us.net
Sat Jun 16 00:17:50 UTC 2012

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:08:54PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 04:48:15PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > >   That doesn't mean that all patches sent to -stable have to be
> > > >   handled by the same person, but the "patches for the XXX subsystem are not
> > > >   handled here" feedback is a bit odd for newcomers.
> > > 
> > > I don't understand, no one should ever send a "new" patch to the stable
> > > list, is that what you mean?  It's pretty rare that it happens (once
> > > every few weeks), so I don't think people are getting all that confused.
> > > 
> > I don't mean new patches. Sorry if I created that impression.
> > 
> > Patches for the net subsystem are not accepted on the stable list, and last time
> > I checked that was not documented anywhere, and is up to each individual to find
> > out. If it is documented now, my apologies for the noise.
> If you tag your network patch for stable, it gives the network
> maintainer a hint that you want this patch queued up for those releases,
> so he handles it that way.
Except if it isn't my patch, affects a release I am responsible for, and is
missing the stable tag.

> So the procedure still is the same, just that networking has a
> maintainer that does an extra-good-job for stable patches, and it
> shouldn't affect any other developer at all really.
> > > discussion of this last year as to how I was going to pick this, cleared
> > > this up?  What do I need to do differently in this area?
> > > 
> > > Oh, and if you couldn't figure it out based on my statements last year
> > > about 3.0 being a longterm kernel, that means that 3.4 will be the next
> > > longterm kernel I maintain.  Kernels outside of this "normal" longterm
> > > selection process are picked by others based on when they want to, and
> > > that is totally arbitrary, and can not be planned, nor do I think you
> > > want it to be.
> > > 
> > I must have missed the announcement about 3.4 being the next longterm maintained
> > kernel by you, and, no, I wasn't able to deduct it from earlier statements.
> It wasn't announced anywhere, as 3.4 hasn't even had the chance to fall
> out of a normal stable release cycle due to 3.5 not being out yet.  But
> I said I would pick one kernel a year, and 3.0 was a year ago, so people
> could infer...
> Or you could just ask me, that's what everyone else did :)
Next time I'll do just that :)


More information about the Ksummit-2012-discuss mailing list