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. > >> > >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/dfd87673-c581-4b4b-b37a-1cf5c817240d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 6 ++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst > >> index 7bb16d42a51833..ebd57cb9277f7b 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst > >> +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst > >> @@ -117,6 +117,12 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: > >> Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the > >> appropriate versions from Fixes: tags. > >> > >> + * Prevent semi-automatic backporting of changes carrying a 'Fixes:' tag: > >> + > >> + .. code-block:: none > >> + > >> + Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # no semi-automatic backport > > > > 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) > And that somehow felt wrong to me, as discussed earlier in > https://lore.kernel.org/all/dfd87673-c581-4b4b-b37a-1cf5c817240d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > [1] e.g. if they don't have or want their whole subsystem marked as > 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools' > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/ignore_list > > > And what do you mean by "semi-automatic"? > > 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? thanks, greg k-h
