|
@@ -1,58 +1,56 @@
|
|
|
Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux 2.6 -stable releases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and what ones are not, into
|
|
|
-the "-stable" tree:
|
|
|
+Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
|
|
|
+"-stable" tree:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- It must be obviously correct and tested.
|
|
|
- - It can not bigger than 100 lines, with context.
|
|
|
+ - It can not be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
|
|
|
- It must fix only one thing.
|
|
|
- It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
|
|
|
- problem..." type thing.)
|
|
|
+ problem..." type thing).
|
|
|
- It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
|
|
|
marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
|
|
|
- security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short,
|
|
|
- something critical.
|
|
|
- - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how
|
|
|
- the race can be exploited.
|
|
|
+ security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
|
|
|
+ critical.
|
|
|
+ - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how the
|
|
|
+ race can be exploited is also provided.
|
|
|
- It can not contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
|
|
|
- whitespace cleanups, etc.)
|
|
|
+ whitespace cleanups, etc).
|
|
|
- It must be accepted by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
|
|
|
- - It must follow Documentation/SubmittingPatches rules.
|
|
|
+ - It must follow the Documentation/SubmittingPatches rules.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
|
|
|
stable@kernel.org.
|
|
|
- - The sender will receive an ack when the patch has been accepted into
|
|
|
- the queue, or a nak if the patch is rejected. This response might
|
|
|
- take a few days, according to the developer's schedules.
|
|
|
- - If accepted, the patch will be added to the -stable queue, for review
|
|
|
- by other developers.
|
|
|
+ - The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the
|
|
|
+ queue, or a NAK if the patch is rejected. This response might take a few
|
|
|
+ days, according to the developer's schedules.
|
|
|
+ - If accepted, the patch will be added to the -stable queue, for review by
|
|
|
+ other developers.
|
|
|
- Security patches should not be sent to this alias, but instead to the
|
|
|
- documented security@kernel.org.
|
|
|
+ documented security@kernel.org address.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review cycle:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- - When the -stable maintainers decide for a review cycle, the patches
|
|
|
- will be sent to the review committee, and the maintainer of the
|
|
|
- affected area of the patch (unless the submitter is the maintainer of
|
|
|
- the area) and CC: to the linux-kernel mailing list.
|
|
|
- - The review committee has 48 hours in which to ack or nak the patch.
|
|
|
+ - When the -stable maintainers decide for a review cycle, the patches will be
|
|
|
+ sent to the review committee, and the maintainer of the affected area of
|
|
|
+ the patch (unless the submitter is the maintainer of the area) and CC: to
|
|
|
+ the linux-kernel mailing list.
|
|
|
+ - The review committee has 48 hours in which to ACK or NAK the patch.
|
|
|
- If the patch is rejected by a member of the committee, or linux-kernel
|
|
|
- members object to the patch, bringing up issues that the maintainers
|
|
|
- and members did not realize, the patch will be dropped from the
|
|
|
- queue.
|
|
|
- - At the end of the review cycle, the acked patches will be added to
|
|
|
- the latest -stable release, and a new -stable release will happen.
|
|
|
- - Security patches will be accepted into the -stable tree directly from
|
|
|
- the security kernel team, and not go through the normal review cycle.
|
|
|
+ members object to the patch, bringing up issues that the maintainers and
|
|
|
+ members did not realize, the patch will be dropped from the queue.
|
|
|
+ - At the end of the review cycle, the ACKed patches will be added to the
|
|
|
+ latest -stable release, and a new -stable release will happen.
|
|
|
+ - Security patches will be accepted into the -stable tree directly from the
|
|
|
+ security kernel team, and not go through the normal review cycle.
|
|
|
Contact the kernel security team for more details on this procedure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review committe:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- - This will be made up of a number of kernel developers who have
|
|
|
- volunteered for this task, and a few that haven't.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
+ - This is made up of a number of kernel developers who have volunteered for
|
|
|
+ this task, and a few that haven't.
|