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 A273370A for ; Sat, 3 May 2014 15:22:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE18C1F940 for ; Sat, 3 May 2014 15:22:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 11:22:29 -0400 From: Greg KH To: Jiri Kosina Message-ID: <20140503152229.GF11837@kroah.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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, May 02, 2014 at 09:42:04PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > I am a responsible maintainer of kernels for SUSE enterprise products. As > such, I am dealing with -stable trees on a regular basis. Hence, if there > is any discussion related to -stable tree process going to happen, I am > highly interested in that discussion. > > 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. See my other response to this. That puts extra work on the subsystem maintainer instead of the stable maintainer, which is not acceptable. I also said this in person last year at KS, and my opinion hasn't changed, sorry. thanks, greg k-h