On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:19:57AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:13 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@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) > > > > > > > > [...] > > > >> 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? > > > > > > 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@xxxxxxxxxx' (or 'nostable@xxxxxxxxxx')? > > > > 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? Then we backport it and let the person know like always. thanks, greg k-h
