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 16BCF2B for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 20:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com (cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com [107.14.166.227]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 856111FB23 for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 20:10:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 16:09:59 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Jiri Kosina Message-ID: <20140502160959.48b71dec@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: , On Fri, 2 May 2014 21:42:04 +0200 (CEST) Jiri Kosina wrote: > I'd like to re-iterate my usual question / discussion topic of > responsibility distribution for -stable patches; my proposal again would > be to align the -stable tree workflow with Linus' tree workflow -- i.e. > subsystem maintainers preparing 'for-stable' branches and sending pull > requests to the stable team, instead of rather random cherry-picking of > the patches from the air as they fly by the stable team members. But the stable tree has a distinct requirement of all patches having to be first in mainline. Having a pull request can allow people to sneak things in that may not be in Linus's tree. That would be bad. The cherry-picking guarantees that only changes that were in Linus's tree get into stable. -- Steve