Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport"

From: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Date: Thu Apr 11 2024 - 05:14:00 EST


On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:50:24AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 11.04.24 09:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 08:59:39AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> On 11.04.24 07:29, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 07:25:04AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >>>> Some developers deliberately steer clear of 'Fixes:' tags to prevent
> >>>> changes from being backported semi-automatically by the stable team.
> >>>> That somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of the Fixes: tag,
> >>>> hence point out there is an alternative to reach the same effect.
> > [...]
> >>> I do not understand, why are you saying "cc: stable" here if you do NOT
> >>> want it backported?
> >> Because the only alternative the developers have to make the stable team
> >> not pick a single patch[1] is to deliberately omit a Fixes: tag even if
> >> the patch normally should have one. Like it was done here:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1712226175.git.antony.antony@xxxxxxxxxxx/
> > That feels odd, but ok I now see the need for this for some minor set of
> > changes (i.e. this has rarely come up in the past 15+ years)
> >
> > [...]
> >> E.g. 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'. That was
> >> the best term I came up with.
> >
> > Thinking about it more, I think we need to be much more explicit, and
> > provide the reason why.
> >
> > How about:
> > cc: <do-not-apply-to-stable@xxxxxxxxxx> # Reason goes here, and must be present
> >
> > and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like
> > <stable@xxxxxxxxxx> is?
>
> Totally fine with me, but that feels somewhat long and hard to type.

I want it long and hard to type and very very explicit that this is what
the developer/maintainer wants to have happen (again, because this is
such a rare occurrence.)

> How
> about just 'no-stable@xxxxxxxxxx' (or 'nostable@xxxxxxxxxx')?

More words are better :)

thanks,

greg k-h