This was the last agreed upon set of rules, it's probably time we actually add
them to the kernel tree to make them "official".
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 58 insertions(+)
--- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ gregkh-2.6/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt 2005-07-29 11:34:01.000000000 -0700
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+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:
+
+ - It must be obviously correct and tested.
+ - It can not 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.)
+ - 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.
+ - It can not contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
+ whitespace cleanups, etc.)
+ - It must be accepted by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
+ - It must follow Documentation/SubmittingPatches rules.
+
+
+Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree:
+
+ - Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to
+ [email protected].
+ - 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 [email protected].
+
+
+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.
+ - 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.
+ 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.
+
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |