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 ESMTPS id 3A70F90 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:02:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5BC184 for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:02:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1446570155.6440.12.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:02:35 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Ksummit-discuss] Stable and delay backports List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I'm still not clear, even after all the discussion, whether there's any value left to annotating the cc to stable with a delay backport. I'm getting ready to post a fix to our block size calculations which make them completely accurate instead of within 5% like they were before. Technically this is a bug fix because people get distressed even over apparently losing 5% of their space, so it will have to be backported, but the algorithm has increased in complexity, so it would be better to incubate in main line for a while to make sure there are no further complaints. So the question: I think I heard Greg say you're automatically delaying merge window backports anyway, so there's no real need to add a separate delay tag, or is there? James