From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7CD21 for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 20:33:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk (shadbolt.e.decadent.org.uk [88.96.1.126]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3D1621FB59 for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 20:33:55 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1399062823.24523.38.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> From: Ben Hutchings To: Jiri Kosina Date: Fri, 02 May 2014 21:33:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-HNazqvSZk91c9WmIgLKX" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-HNazqvSZk91c9WmIgLKX Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 21:42 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > I am a responsible maintainer of kernels for SUSE enterprise products. As= =20 > such, I am dealing with -stable trees on a regular basis. Hence, if there= =20 > is any discussion related to -stable tree process going to happen, I am= =20 > highly interested in that discussion. >=20 > I'd like to re-iterate my usual question / discussion topic of=20 > responsibility distribution for -stable patches; my proposal again would= =20 > be to align the -stable tree workflow with Linus' tree workflow -- i.e.= =20 > subsystem maintainers preparing 'for-stable' branches and sending pull= =20 > requests to the stable team, instead of rather random cherry-picking of= =20 > the patches from the air as they fly by the stable team members. >=20 > Suggested participants: stable team, major distro kernel maintainers I won't be able to participate as I'm going to other events which clash with kernel summit this year. The problem remains that most subsystem maintainers don't seem to want to do this, so I think this would have to be opt-in for them. Ben. --=20 Ben Hutchings Lowery's Law: If it jams, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway= . --=-HNazqvSZk91c9WmIgLKX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUAU2QBLOe/yOyVhhEJAQrkzQ//XL5AK1drXf+oKJ7LCSaDpOKRBVpz7RbP Yfd4g3+0hdHNFysifxdaav3y7GaE4SHENkY/xfSnZNg6opkyHHr1ZVS99VUFGAdT RFg/UEy81QjQK84FWfcSQCWMesU1fwAwuhIAqko0lUF5dABw+h1oxXDpGP44pEBM 4+7hCWrLC3MDNWZy+Ys1CF31SxcwyMBj8ol4RoIZcaTY+QRs4RYuB+jdccD1GeJQ gOI0xetorcwqmZByxr0I7nggHgIuf4Ej12Ssp9vyxB0xiusGIeHC0mNfes+AnoAV 4zOssNxYk+EFKmAX48X5NldeM5gbkXcBSAW732XJOIp6VZDT9bH6kc5roPTPPwgc 7hvbF5w0PoUn8wqVHrg2rVcK/9IGrHA6cHQvN4sBN8bRFGeWJl4QuAlw0pzUtTHQ FQTcz0fWKEQ1gDGUjHN49+m4YcEH8QHRqc82e7G92wrrpa9XgOA5RQ+6GelgWoav ChNIpz+hs9o9t7OIvJwMLONRO5HGv6NkWix+EkTbqosZLOLvh8+ofE1lborqwriL ZSQc1WQUGxdFziIe/XWDVXdBOUdMwLbEHQHTbcOCMaUEiZtSNqW9zs0MiD+RdX+p gcafBPTvSnukXJz3cCi67kOySjUpU/XJnobwAR64lq3MWjTIGIONeCDRcPmwNzfq gBqImsoV4Bc= =AVbx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-HNazqvSZk91c9WmIgLKX--