On Sun 11-08-19 19:46:14, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:17:18PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 08:46:33 +0200 Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Maybe we should introduce the Fixes-no-stable: tag. That should get > > > > their attention. > > > > > > No please, Fixes shouldn't be really tight to any stable tree rules. It > > > is a very useful indication of which commit has introduced bug/problem > > > or whatever that the patch follows up to. We in Suse are using this tag > > > to evaluate potential fixes as the stable is not reliable. We could live > > > with Fixes-no-stable or whatever other name but does it really makes > > > sense to complicate the existing state when stable maintainers are doing > > > whatever they want anyway? Does a tag like that force AI from selecting > > > a patch? I am not really convinced. > > > > It should work if we ask stable trees maintainers not to backport > > such patches. > > > > Sasha, please don't backport patches which are marked Fixes-no-stable: > > and which lack a cc:stable tag. > > I'll add it to my filter, thank you! I would really prefer to stick with Fixes: tag and stable only picking up cc: stable patches. I really hate to see workarounds for sensible workflows (marking the Fixes) just because we are trying to hide something from stable maintainers. Seriously, if stable maintainers have a different idea about what should be backported, it is their call. They are the ones to deal with regressions and the backporting effort in those cases of disagreement. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
