path: root/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
diff options
authorGreg KH <gregkh@suse.de>2005-07-29 12:14:34 -0700
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@g5.osdl.org>2005-07-29 13:12:49 -0700
commitfc185d95ecf3ca62fa9afb5214a69b39060ff537 (patch)
tree2624dfcf3e4ab1a557576ec5226ed663b5bd2509 /Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
parent3348e05a4f25489908d9f7ed4e80ac291ead18f4 (diff)
[PATCH] Add the rules about the -stable kernel releases to the Documentation directory
This was the last agreed upon set of rules, it's probably time we actually add them to the kernel tree to make them "official". Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt')
1 files changed, 58 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt b/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..2c81305090d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+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:
+ - It must be obviously correct and tested.
+ - It can not 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.
+ - It can not contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
+ whitespace cleanups, etc.)
+ - It must be accepted by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
+ - It must follow 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.
+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 will be made up of a number of kernel developers who have
+ volunteered for this task, and a few that haven't.