On 4/17/24 01:48, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:16:26AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
at the scripts used by stable developers - and maybe at the ML server - to
catch different variations won't hurt, as it sounds likely that people will
end messing up with a big name like "do-not-apply-to-stable", typing
instead things like:
do_not_apply_to_stable
dont-apply-to-stable
and other variants.
I want this very explicit that someone does not want this applied, and
that it has a reason to do so. And if getting the email right to do so
is the issue with that, that's fine. This is a very rare case that
almost no one should normally hit.
For using a comparable approach in haproxy on a daily basis, I do see
the value in this. We just mark a lot of fixes "no backport needed" or
"no backport needed unless blablabla" for everything that is only
relevant to the dev tree, and that's a huge time saver for those working
on the backports later.
Maybe "not-for-stable" would be both shorter and easier to remember BTW ?
Yes, "not-for-stable" looks like a good name to me.
--
Florian
