On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 08:50:19AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # after 4 weeks in mainline > >>>> + Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # after 6 weeks in a stable mainline release > >>> > >>> I 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # wait until -rc3 > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # wait until 6.1 is released > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # 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. I've normally seen patches end up in Linus's tree "too early" more often (i.e. cc: stable for stuff that has never been in a stable tree yet), but sure, I can see how changes can also take too long. > 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). Yes, referencing off of a fixed point like a release is best as that's much easier for humans to calculate. Also because, the original "after 4 weeks", doesn't give me a reference point to judge what the starting time is easily. Yes, I have tools for that, but most people don't. So how about changing it to use the "fixed point" reference please? The phrasing "after -rc3" is probably what most people almost always want anyway, given the huge churn that -rc1 is. thanks, greg k-h
