On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 07:06:26AM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 09:05:16PM -0500, Slade Watkins wrote: > > On 2/28/23 06:28, Greg KH wrote: > > >> But just so you know, as a maintainer, you have the option to request that > > >> patches to your subsystem will not be selected by AUTOSEL and run your > > >> own process to select, test and submit fixes to stable trees. > > > > > > Yes, and simply put, that's the answer for any subsystem or maintainer > > > that does not want their patches picked using the AUTOSEL tool. > > > > > > The problem that the AUTOSEL tool is solving is real, we have whole > > > major subsystems where no patches are ever marked as "for stable" and so > > > real bugfixes are never backported properly. > > > > Yeah, I agree. > > > > And I'm throwing this out here [after having time to think about it due to an > > internet outage], but, would Cc'ing the patch's relevant subsystems on AUTOSEL > > emails help? This was sort of mentioned in this email[1] from Eric, and I > > think it _could_ help? I don't know, just something that crossed my mind earlier. > > I don't know, maybe? Note that determining a patch's "subsystem" at > many times is difficult in an automated fashion, have any idea how to do > that reliably that doesn't just hit lkml all the time? As I said, it seems Sasha already does this for AUTOSEL (but not other stable emails). I assume he uses either get_maintainer.pl, or the lists the original patch is sent to (retrievable from lore). This is *not* a hard problem. > But again, how is that going to help much, the people who should be > saying "no" are the ones on the signed-off-by and cc: lines in the patch > itself. So that if one person does not respond, other people can help. You're basically arguing that mailing lists shouldn't exist at all... - Eric
