Re: m68k libc5 regression

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 02:41:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:22:05 +0200 Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 01:48:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 10:37:59 +0200 (CEST) Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > I shall merge this fix into my tree (y'know - the one where memory
> > > > > management patches are hosted) and I'll get it into 2.6.26 and shall
> > > > > offer it to the -stable team.  This will cause me to get collisions
> > > > > with the duplicated patch in linux-next but fortunately it is small. 
> > > > > This time.
> > > > 
> > > > So what's the appropriate way to handle this?
> > > 
> > > Well at least please reply letting people know what's happening with it.
> > > 
> > > Ask me to merge it and remind me that it's needed in -stable.  Or just
> > > send the thing to Linus and -stable immediately.
> > 
> > I recall adding:
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx
> > 
> > will automagically tell the stable team when this is
> > merged and that it is a -stable candidate.
> > 
> 
> Yup.  Except I always use the <> wrappers around the email address.  In
> fact my scripts require that (and probably shouldn't).  We don't seem
> very consistent with that.

Email addresses are often verbatim copied from MAINTAINERS
where we not yet have proper format (no <>).
So relying on <> in Cc: is not good.

For stable on 20 where without <> since 2.6.20 compered to
291 with <>.

	Sam
--
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/