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 :) thanks, greg k-h
