| 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. | |
| - New device IDs and quirks are also accepted. | |
| - 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 follow the Documentation/SubmittingPatches rules. | |
| - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree. Quote the | |
| respective commit ID in Linus' tree in your patch submission to -stable. | |
| 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 and by the relevant subsystem maintainer. | |
| - If the stable@kernel.org address is added to a patch, when it goes into | |
| Linus's tree it will automatically be emailed to the stable team. | |
| - 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 committee: | |
| - This is made up of a number of kernel developers who have volunteered for | |
| this task, and a few that haven't. |