Re: [patch 00/17] 2.6.27-stable review

[Josh Boyer]

On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 11:33:34AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
>This is the start of the stable review cycle for the 2.6.27.3 release.
>There are 17 patches in this series, all will be posted as a response
>to this one.  If anyone has any issues with these being applied, please
>let us know.  If anyone is a maintainer of the proper subsystem, and
>wants to add a Signed-off-by: line to the patch, please respond with it.
>
>These patches are sent out with a number of different people on the
>Cc: line.  If you wish to be a reviewer, please email stable@xxxxxxxxxx
>to add your name to the list.  If you want to be off the reviewer list,
>also email us.
>
>Responses should be made by Wed, October 22, 2008 19:00:00 UTC.
>Anything received after that time might be too late.

OK, I realize I'm late.  Apologies in advance for that.

I don't see how patches 3, 16, and 17 really fit into the "stable"
rules.  None of them:

"... fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
 marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
 security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue.  In short,
 something critical."

So, are we being a bit more lax on the requirements for the
-stable kernels and I missed the memo, or?

josh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/