On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:47:29PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:05:01PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 01:55:12PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > > > Ok, how about I never apply any xfs stable kernel patch, unless you send
> > > > it to stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?
> > >
> > > Dave has made it clear that he doesn't want to be involved in maintaining
> > > -stable kernels.
> I don't think you quite understand, Ben.
> > > > I have that rule in place for some other subsystems that don't want me
> > > > applying stuff that they aren't aware of, and have no problem doing the
> > > > same
> > > > thing here.
> > > >
> > > > Just let me know.
> Sounds like a fine idea, Greg.
> > > Here are the usual suspects:
> > >
> > > Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
> > > Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
> > > Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> I don't think it should be restricted to individuals. The private
> thread used to request this backport is exactly why I didn't see
> the request in a timely fashion, and also the reason why we didn't
> end up with notifications for review going to xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hence I'd suggest the only thing that matters is that there is a cc
> to xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, because that means all of the above people (and
> more) are on that list and hence have the best chance to see and
> review the backport request.
> > Ok, but for this specific patch, did I do something wrong in taking it?
> No, you didn't do anything wrong, Greg. Stuff went wrong on the XFS
> side of the fence.
> > I guess I'll just let you send me xfs patches, is that ok with everyone
> > else?
> Sure, that would work, but only after the patches have been sent to
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx for review and testing and been acked. And, of
> course, the stable submission woul dalso need to have a
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx cc on it. ;)
Making sure that xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx is Cc'd on -stable patches seems reasonable to
me. No objection here, Dave.