[PATCH] UBUNTU: SAUCE: acpi: video: fix acpi_backlight=video

Chase Douglas chase.douglas at canonical.com
Tue May 4 00:08:46 UTC 2010

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Kamal Mostafa <kamal at canonical.com> wrote:
> Questions:
> 1. Was it okay that I sent it upstream and to kernel-team at l.u.c
> simultaneously, or was I supposed to send to k-t first and wait for some
> Ack's before sending upstream?

It's certainly fine to send patches to both at the same time. As for
myself, If I have a patch against upstream I usually submit it there
first, wait for it to be included, and then send it back here as
pre-stable if appropriate. This saves time and limits confusion if you
have to rework your patch for upstream. In cases that are really hairy
(like the load avg patch last month), I'll send it around here as sort
of an RFC, but I think that's unnecessary for simpler patches.

My gut feeling is that Acks from our team in general aren't as useful
as are Acks from people who are involved with the subsystem in
question. It might be helpful to have an Ack or two from us, but only
as a sanity check that multiple people think it's ok. Overall, I've
found that I haven't really needed Acks from others before submission
as long as the patch was good :).

> 2. What would have been the proper subject line for this?  I mean, how
> do I send a patch to k-t "for the purpose of getting some Ack's" without
> asking that it be applied to any Ubuntu tree?  Should I just have left
> out "UBUNTU: SAUCE:"?   Or maybe used  "[RFC PATCH]" also?

I'm not real sure, but [RFC] sounds good to me. As soon as you start
including ubuntu specific tags it begins to look like you sent it for
inclusion in an ubuntu kernel as is.

I hope that helps!

-- Chase

More information about the kernel-team mailing list