Re: [ 3.8.y.z extended stable ] Linux 3.8.13.11 stable review

[Ben Hutchings]

On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 11:37 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Kamal Mostafa <kamal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This is the start of the review cycle for the Linux 3.8.13.11 stable kernel.
> 
> Would anybody be interested in adding some sort of "stable" tag to the
> subject lines of stable backport patches, e.g.,  instead of:
> 
>   [PATCH 001/104] htb: fix sign extension bug
> 
> something like:
> 
>   [STABLE 3.8.13.11 001/104] htb: fix sign extension bug
> 
> I don't mind having the stable patches on LKML, but it would be nice
> if it were easier to distinguish stable backports from new patches.  I
> know the patches are nicely threaded behind this message, but some
> readers don't really pay attention to that.

I agree that some distinction is needed, but I'm not convinced about
that precise format.  I don't think it's worth including version
components after the stable base version e.g. 3.2.  And I think that
including the version is a big enough clue that this is for a stable
branch and not mainline.

So I've changed my review script to put a subject prefix of 'PATCH 3.2'
before the patch number (and similarly in the cover letter).  But if
there's consensus that a more explicit tag is wanted then I'll follow
that.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Horngren's Observation:
                   Among economists, the real world is often a special case.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part