Hi Ted,
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 4:47 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o tytso@mit.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 11:01:04AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Because cc: stable came first, and for some reason people think that it is all that is necessary to get patches committed to the stable tree, despite it never being documented or that way. I have to correct someone about this about 2x a month on the stable@vger list.
For a developer, it's much easier to not care about "Cc: stable" at all, because as soon as you add a "Cc: stable" to a patch, or CC stable, someone will compain ;-) Much easier to just add a Fixes: tag, and know it will be backported to trees that have the "buggy" commit.
What sort of complaints have you gotten? I add "cc: stable" for the ext4 tree, and I can't say I've gotten any complaints.
Usually a complaint about using the wrong process for subsystem X.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert