Re: [patch 2/2] Documentation/process: Add tip tree handbook

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 09:19:33AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:13 AM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 08:40:12AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > + - Cc: ``cc-ed-person <person@mail>``
> > > > +
> > > > +   If the patch should be backported to stable, then please add a '``Cc:
> > > > +   stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx``' tag, but do not Cc stable when sending your
> > > > +   mail.
> > >
> > > Can I suggest a more canonical form:
> > >
> > >       Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v4.18 and later kernels
> > >
> > > It would be nice if people adding Cc: stable lines would actually try to
> > > figure out which exact kernel versions are affected.
> 
> I know at least StGit mail does not grok that "#"notation. I've
> stopped using it in favor of a "Fixes:" tag. I would think "Fixes:" is
> preferred over "# <KVER>" if only because it can be used to track
> fixes to commits that have been backported to stable. Is there any
> reason for "# <KVER>" to continue in a world where we have "Fixes:"?

I sometimes have fixes that need to be different for different past
releases.  And there have been cases where RCU patches would apply and
build cleanly against releases for which it was not appropriate, but
would have some low-probability failure.  Which meant that it could be
expected to pass light testing.  :-/

So I sometimes need a way of saying which versions a given patch applies
to, independent of the version into which the bug was introduced.

							Thanx, Paul