On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:57:04AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 11.04.24 11:19, 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? > > Ask why the tag was set I guess. But yeah, that was among the minor > reasons why I had come up with "no semiautomatic stable backport" thing, > as it made the intention more clear. Maybe > > only-manual-stable-backport@xxxxxxxxxx > > could help and is even longer. But I might be getting into bikeshedding > territory here. :-D That one would not work as I would then manually backport the commit :) Actually, one can say that all of the commits are manually backported as I review them all that are cc: stable when I apply them. So while bikeshedding is fun, this would mean the opposite of what you intend. thanks, greg k-h
