Subject: Add the rules about the -stable kernel releases to the Documentation directory
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email-masked]>

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 <[email-masked]>

---
 Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt |   58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 58 insertions(+)

--- /dev/null	1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000
+++ gregkh-2.6/Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt	2005-07-29 11:07:03.000000000 -0700
@@ -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
+   [email-masked].
+ - 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 [email-masked].
+
+
+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.
+