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 9552D21 for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 19:43:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-f179.google.com (mail-ob0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D14FB1FDEC for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 19:43:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id vb8so5691583obc.24 for ; Fri, 02 May 2014 12:43:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: jwboyer@gmail.com In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 15:43:29 -0400 Message-ID: From: Josh Boyer To: Jiri Kosina Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 2, 2014 at 3:42 PM, 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. > > Suggested participants: stable team, major distro kernel maintainers I'd be very interested in this as well, since Fedora continually rebases to the newer stable releases. josh