]>
Commit | Line | Data |
---|---|---|
1 | Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux 2.6 -stable releases. | |
2 | ||
3 | Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the | |
4 | "-stable" tree: | |
5 | ||
6 | - It must be obviously correct and tested. | |
7 | - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context. | |
8 | - It must fix only one thing. | |
9 | - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a | |
10 | problem..." type thing). | |
11 | - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things | |
12 | marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real | |
13 | security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something | |
14 | critical. | |
15 | - New device IDs and quirks are also accepted. | |
16 | - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how the | |
17 | race can be exploited is also provided. | |
18 | - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes, | |
19 | whitespace cleanups, etc). | |
20 | - It must follow the Documentation/SubmittingPatches rules. | |
21 | - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree. Quote the | |
22 | respective commit ID in Linus' tree in your patch submission to -stable. | |
23 | ||
24 | ||
25 | Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree: | |
26 | ||
27 | - Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to | |
28 | stable@kernel.org. | |
29 | - The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the | |
30 | queue, or a NAK if the patch is rejected. This response might take a few | |
31 | days, according to the developer's schedules. | |
32 | - If accepted, the patch will be added to the -stable queue, for review by | |
33 | other developers and by the relevant subsystem maintainer. | |
34 | - If the stable@kernel.org address is added to a patch, when it goes into | |
35 | Linus's tree it will automatically be emailed to the stable team. | |
36 | - Security patches should not be sent to this alias, but instead to the | |
37 | documented security@kernel.org address. | |
38 | ||
39 | ||
40 | Review cycle: | |
41 | ||
42 | - When the -stable maintainers decide for a review cycle, the patches will be | |
43 | sent to the review committee, and the maintainer of the affected area of | |
44 | the patch (unless the submitter is the maintainer of the area) and CC: to | |
45 | the linux-kernel mailing list. | |
46 | - The review committee has 48 hours in which to ACK or NAK the patch. | |
47 | - If the patch is rejected by a member of the committee, or linux-kernel | |
48 | members object to the patch, bringing up issues that the maintainers and | |
49 | members did not realize, the patch will be dropped from the queue. | |
50 | - At the end of the review cycle, the ACKed patches will be added to the | |
51 | latest -stable release, and a new -stable release will happen. | |
52 | - Security patches will be accepted into the -stable tree directly from the | |
53 | security kernel team, and not go through the normal review cycle. | |
54 | Contact the kernel security team for more details on this procedure. | |
55 | ||
56 | ||
57 | Review committee: | |
58 | ||
59 | - This is made up of a number of kernel developers who have volunteered for | |
60 | this task, and a few that haven't. |