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 9E0B021 for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 20:12:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2755F1FB23 for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 20:12:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 22:12:50 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Steven Rostedt In-Reply-To: <20140502160959.48b71dec@gandalf.local.home> Message-ID: References: <20140502160959.48b71dec@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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, 2 May 2014, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > 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. > > But the stable tree has a distinct requirement of all patches having to > be first in mainline. > > Having a pull request can allow people to sneak things in that may not > be in Linus's tree. That would be bad. The cherry-picking guarantees > that only changes that were in Linus's tree get into stable. Hmm, I don't see how maintainer cherry-picking into 'for-stable' branch is different from stable team cherry-picking from Linus' tree. The rule that Linus' tree commit has to be referenced in the commit message (cherry-picking implies rebase anyway) can of course stay as-is, and is automatically verifiable. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs