On 11.04.24 08:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 07:50:29AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 11.04.24 07:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 07:25:05AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # after 4 weeks in mainline
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # after 6 weeks in a stable mainline releaseI do not know what "stable mainline release" means here, sorry. "after 4 weeks in mainline" means "after in Linus's tree for 4 weeks, but Linus's tree is not "stable mainline".
I meant a proper mainline release like 6.7 or 6.8 to make it obvious that this does not mean a "pre-release".
I actually had used the term "proper mainline release" earlier in a draft, but a quick search on the net showed that this is not really used out there. "stable mainline release" is not popular either, but seemed to be a better match; I also considered "final mainline release", but that felt odd.
It feels like there must be some better term my mind just stumbles to come up with. Please help. :-D
Well, what is the goal here? Just put it in words, I have seen stuff like: Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # wait until -rc3 Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # wait until 6.1 is released Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # after -rc2
and so on.
Just pick a specific time/release might be better? "after X weeks" is assuming that we all know and remember how many weeks something happened...
My reasoning was: a developer that submits a patch has no full control over when the patch mainlined -- and plans sometimes change, too.
So a patch that was meant to go into 6.1-rc with a tag like "# wait until 4 weeks after 6.1 is released" might only be mainlined for 6.2-rc1 -- and then the tag does not express the developers intention.
But that might be a corner case that we could ignore. So maybe "# wait until 4 weeks after 6.1 is released" is the better example (from what I've heard something like that is what developer would like to have sometimes).
Ciao, Thorsten