From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Date: Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 02:22:09PM -0400

quoted text
> On 06/11/2010 09:15 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > 
> > Not yet. And I'm assuming you're driving at tagging it for -stable?
> > If yes, I think a stable tag makes sense since this way the distros
> > will pick it up more easily and we most definitely will need to do the
> > backport later otherwise.
> > 
> > Do you need another version with the stable tag resent or is it easier
> > for you to edit the commit message of the one you have already?
> > 
> 
> No, I'm not -- Linus is being really snippy about wanting regressions
> only this cycle, which this is not.

Yeah, so I heard :)

quoted text
> Once .35 is out you can talk to Greg about -stable.

Right, so this is clearly .36 merge window material - I just thought I
should get it out as early as possible so that it gets tested.

And by the way, how about a tag which says which kernel is the patch
aimed at so that maintainers know what should go where. I mean, with
those gazillion patches on lkml one doesn't always know which is
regression, which is a new feature but should go in earlier so that it
catches the next merge window etc? I.e., something like:

Aimed-at: 2.6.36+

or for regressions

Aimed-at: 2.6.35-rc3

and maybe even a bug info

Fixes: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=....

I'm afraid this is starting to sound like Ingo's Impact: tag, at least
semantically, which didn't get accepted. Hmm, anyway, I'll try adding
such an information in later patches.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Operating Systems Research Center
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/