On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:57:04AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 11.04.24 11:19, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:13 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman gregkh@linuxfoundation.org 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@secunet.com/
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@kernel.org # Reason goes here, and must be present
and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like stable@kernel.org 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@kernel.org' (or 'nostable@kernel.org')?
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@kernel.org
could help and is even longer. But I might be getting into bikeshedding territory here. :-D
That one would not work as I would then manually backport the commit :)
Actually, one can say that all of the commits are manually backported as I review them all that are cc: stable when I apply them. So while bikeshedding is fun, this would mean the opposite of what you intend.
thanks,
greg k-h