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 03F144C6 for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 19:42:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BC961FC59 for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 19:42:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 519A7AD24 for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 19:42:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 21:42:04 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , 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 -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs