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 8E2E383D for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 22:16:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bh-25.webhostbox.net (bh-25.webhostbox.net [208.91.199.152]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C447E1 for ; Wed, 3 Aug 2016 22:16:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2016 15:16:21 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Jiri Kosina Message-ID: <20160803221621.GA17248@roeck-us.net> References: <20160803110935.GA26270@kroah.com> <87a8guq9y8.fsf@intel.com> <20160803132607.GA31662@kroah.com> <20160803141937.GA9180@kroah.com> <57A21252.7000407@roeck-us.net> <20160803161234.GA32965@dtor-ws> <57A21F88.7000504@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 08:57:26PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > How can one reasonable expect a stable maintainer to determine if a > > patch for an oddball architecture applies, or one for a random subsystem? > > So *who* is supposed to be *the* responsible person for cherry-picking the > patch and verifying that it is applicable to particular -stable? > Cherry-picking and verifying applicability are two separate tasks, so mixing them together makes it a bit difficult to answer the question. I'll focus on verifying applicability. > The statement above suggests that it's definitely not a responsibility of > stable branch maintainer. > Question is if it _can_ reasonably be the responsibility of a stable branch maintainer to verify if a patch is applicable. I don't think it is, beyond "It is tagged for this release". Of course, I may be wrong, and both stable branch maintainers and the community may have a different opinion. > OTOH Greg (and not only him) argues that maintainers are already > overloaded, so asking them to actually prepare patches for particular > stable trees (at least the ones they care about) is too much to ask. > That is a bit different, though. I don't think I (or anyone else) suggested that subsystem maintainers should start _preparing_ patches for stable trees. The question is who can make the call if a patch applies to a specific stable tree or not, especially if it is only marked with a generic "Cc: stable". Guenter