From e48e99093c9bbb67f95e903d37aef30a969a0153 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jesper Juhl Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 20:53:59 -0800 Subject: [PATCH] Docs update: small fixes to stable_kernel_rules.txt Small spelling, formating & similar fixes to stable_kernel_rules.txt Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds --- Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt | 60 +++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) (limited to 'Documentation') diff --git a/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt b/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt index 2c81305090df..e409e5d07486 100644 --- a/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt +++ b/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt @@ -1,58 +1,56 @@ 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: +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 can not bigger than 100 lines, with context. + - It can not 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.) + 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. + 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 can not contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes, - whitespace cleanups, etc.) + whitespace cleanups, etc). - It must be accepted by the relevant subsystem maintainer. - - It must follow Documentation/SubmittingPatches rules. + - 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. + - 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. + 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. + - 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. + 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. - + - This is made up of a number of kernel developers who have volunteered for + this task, and a few that haven't. -- cgit v1.2.3-58-ga151