On 17.04.24 15:38, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 03:21:12PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 17.04.24 14:52, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 09:48:18AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>>> Could you please create the email alias >>>> do-not-apply-to-stable@xxxxxxxxxx which redirects all mail to /dev/null, >>>> just like stable@xxxxxxxxxx does? >>>> >>>> To quote: >>>> >>>>> 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? >> >> FWIW, we could go back to what I initially proposed: use the existing >> stable tag with a pre-defined comment to mark patches that AUTOSEL et. >> al. should not pick up: >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c0a08b160b286e8c98549eedb37404c6e784cf8a.1712812895.git.linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > If you can pick a better string, possibly, yes. What did you think of Konstantin's Cc: stable+noautosel@xxxxxxxxxx # Reason That looked like a good solution -- and I wondered why I did not come up with that idea myself. Sure, "autosel" would also imply/mean "the scripts/tools that look out for Fixes: tags", but does that matter? > But in the end, your proposal seems to imply: > > cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxx # Psych! Just kidding, never backport this! > > but really, that's just mean, and again, this is a VERY rare case you > are trying to automate here. We have MUCH better and simpler ways for> maintainers to not have their subsystems scanned for stuff like this, > why are we spending all of our time on this topic? It started with various minor reasons -- and after some "this would be nice to have" feedback it felt wrong to give up. It also looked like we had some agreement already before a new discussion began. Ciao, Thorsten
