From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 10:06:45 +0530 From: Vinod Koul To: Steven Rostedt Message-ID: <20160727043645.GZ9681@localhost> References: <20160709000631.GB8989@io.lakedaemon.net> <1468024946.2390.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20160709093626.GA6247@sirena.org.uk> <20160710162203.GA9681@localhost> <20160710170117.GI26097@thunk.org> <20160711050000.GC9681@localhost> <20160711051335.GQ26097@thunk.org> <20160711141833.GK9681@localhost> <20160726231242.7c993900@grimm.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160726231242.7c993900@grimm.local.home> Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jason Cooper Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] stable workflow List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:12:42PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 19:48:34 +0530 > Vinod Koul wrote: > > > But the person might be slightly better off than you or me :-) > > > > I still believe that it comes down to the maintainer making the final > decision about marking a patch as stable. If they don't have the > hardware to test it, then they should then ask the patch submitter to > test for stable. If the submitter doesn't want to for whatever reason, > then that patch simply shouldn't be marked for stable. Agreed, that's the reason I was asking if we should ask submitters. But looks like that adds a cost which no one wants to be burdened with! -- ~Vinod