From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: "Luck, Tony" To: Guenter Roeck , Jiri Kosina , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org" Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 23:38:27 +0000 Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F3A15659B@ORSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <5780334E.8020801@roeck-us.net> In-Reply-To: <5780334E.8020801@roeck-us.net> Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > In addition to that, I'd again (like during the past 5+ years, but it > never really happened) like to propose a stable tree discussion topic: I'= d > like to see an attempt to make the stable workflow more oriented towards > "maintainers sending pull requests" rather than "random people pointing t= o > patches that should go to stable". This has been much of an issue in the Shouldn't the common case be "Maintainer sends list of commit IDs to be cherry-picked" rather than a pull request? It's only when things get complicated that you fall back to: 1) commit to cherry-pick + fixup patch or in extreme cases 2) Patch that does equivalent fix, but without having to pull in a ton of other things from mainline. -Tony