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

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 11.04.24 11:19, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:13 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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 :)
> 
> And after that, someone discovers this turns out to be (a hard
> dependency for) a very critical fix that does need backporting?

Ask why the tag was set I guess. But yeah, that was among the minor
reasons why I had come up with "no semiautomatic stable backport" thing,
as it made the intention more clear. Maybe

only-manual-stable-backport@xxxxxxxxxx

could help and is even longer. But I might be getting into bikeshedding
territory here. :-D

Ciao, Thorsten


Cioao, Thorsten