84eb8d0608
Randy brought it to my attention that in proper english "can not" should always be written "cannot". I donot see any reason to argue, even if I mightnot understand why this rule exists. This patch fixes "can not" in several Documentation files as well as three Kconfigs. Signed-off-by: Matt LaPlante <kernel1@cyberdogtech.com> Acked-by: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
57 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
57 lines
2.5 KiB
Plaintext
Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux 2.6 -stable releases.
|
|
|
|
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 cannot 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).
|
|
- 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 is also provided.
|
|
- It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
|
|
whitespace cleanups, etc).
|
|
- It must be accepted by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
|
|
- 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.
|
|
- Security patches should not be sent to this alias, but instead to the
|
|
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.
|
|
- 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 is made up of a number of kernel developers who have volunteered for
|
|
this task, and a few that haven't.
|