On Fri, 2012-08-31 at 23:32 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 02:11:55PM -0700, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 20:14 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 02:37:11PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 06:23:04PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:52:24PM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > > > > > > I've CC'd stable to see if they want to pick this up. > > > > > > > > > > That's not how stable works - and you'll probably receive a standard > > > > > form > > > > > whinge from them about that. Please read up on the submission > > > > > requirements > > > > > to the stable kernel trees. > > > > > > > > Ah, thanks. usually, I just add the Cc: line for fixes I send to > > > > arm-soc. Since this patch affects more than just kirkwood/marvell, I > > > > didn't feel it was appropriate to pull it in through my tree. > > > > > > Yes, you put the Cc: line in the commit, but you don't actually send it > > > to that address. > > [...] > > > > It's OK to cc the stable address when submitting to the relevant > > subsystem maintainer *as well as* including the cc: line in the commit > > message. It just can't be used as a substitute for the commit line. > > No it is not. It seems you also need to read > Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt [...]
None of which contradicts what I said above. There is no need for people to specifically filter out [email protected] from mail recipients. I never see any complaints from Greg or others when patches have it cc'd in both the commit message and the mail header; only when it is in the mail header *only*. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Theory and practice are closer in theory than in practice. - John Levine, moderator of comp.compilers
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
