Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Coping with the new-developer flood

On Fri, Aug 07, 2026 at 09:02:14AM -0400, Mimi Zohar wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-08-06 at 23:23 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 06, 2026 at 10:32:40PM -0500, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 06, 2026 at 01:28:25PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> > > > - actually applies
> > > > - isn't against a known LTS branch
> > > 
> > > No one wants patches against an LTS branch.  That would violate the
> > > stable rules since everything should be upstream first.
> > 
> > Right, we should issue a warning if it's not a backport from upstream
> > (e.g., if it's against an LTS branch, it should have an
> > Upstream-commit: tag).
> > 
> > There are some few exceptions, where a fix can't be easily backported
> > to the LTS branch, and so a different way of fixing a particular
> > serious patch needs to be applied to the LTS branch.  But normally
> > this will be explicitly stated in the commit description, but we don't
> > do that in a structured way, so it might be hard for a non-LLM bot to
> > figure this out.  On the other hand, this is a pretty advanced
> > technique, and it's unlikely that a new kernel developer would be
> > doing something like this.  So we probably just ignore this case for a
> > newcomers-focused bot.
> 
> Hi Ted,
> 
> I have a patch that doesn't need to be upstreamed, as per Eric Bigger's
> comment[1], but needs to be in stable kernels.  What is the process for doing
> that.
> 
> [1]https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/[email protected]/
> 

Send a patch to [email protected] with an commit message that
explains why it isn't needed upstream.

regards,
dan carpenter