| |||||||||||||
Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernelsSome numbers and thoughts on the stable kernelsPosted Aug 29, 2010 0:46 UTC (Sun) by hmh (subscriber, #3838)In reply to: Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels by corbet Parent article: Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels
Yes, that would be nice.
Also, when there is no "spotted-by:" but there is a "cc: stable", it likely means that the patch author noticed it should go into stable.
That said, I think "stable-proposal-by" would be a better tag.
(Log in to post comments)
Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels Posted Aug 29, 2010 14:44 UTC (Sun) by eduard.munteanu (guest, #66641) [Link]
Hm, a simple "Signed-off-by:" should suffice. It's already standard practice for people who maintain their own tree and relay stuff upstream, and usually those trees are rebased often. So it might make sense to use that for singular cases as well (even if they're not merges).
This...
Signed-off-by: <original author>
Could turn into this...
Signed-off-by: <original author>
Possibly with some variation, such as whether or not you keep the maintainer in the Signed-off-by chain.
Some numbers and thoughts on the stable kernels Posted Aug 30, 2010 22:32 UTC (Mon) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link] Hm, a simple "Signed-off-by:" should suffice. Yeah. Here's a previous discussion, where Linus says: So when you save a patch from oblivion by passing it on to the right person, and get it submitted when it was originally dropped by some reason, you're actually doing a fundamentally important job. Maybe it's just one small piece of the puzzle, but hey, you'd only get one small line in the changeset, so the credit (or blame ;) really is appropriate.
|
|||||||||||||