On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 10:46:37PM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:25:18 -0400 > Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > > > On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 05:49:29PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > @Greg, BTW: should this be stable+noautosel@xxxxxxxxxx or have a > > > 'vger.' > > > > No vger, just stable+whatever@xxxxxxxxxx. > > > > > in it, e.g. stable+noautosel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx? I assume without 'vger.' > > > is fine, just wanted to be sure, as > > > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst in all other cases > > > specifies stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, so people are likely to get confused. > > > :-/ #sigh > > > > These serve two different purposes: > > > > stable@xxxxxxxxxx (goes into devnull) > > stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (actual mailing list) > > > > Confusion happens all the time, unfortunately. > > Yeah, I did already used stable@xxxxxxxxxx a few times in the > past. > > IMO, the best would be either for stable to also accept it or for > kernel.org mail server to return an error message (only to the > submitter) warning about the invalid address, eventually with a > hint message pointing to the correct value. stable@xxxxxxxxxx is there to route to /dev/null on purpose so that developers/maintainers who only want their patches to get picked up when they hit Linus's tree, will have happen and not notify anyone else. This is especially good when dealing with security-related things as we have had MANY people accidentally leak patches way too early by having cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx in their signed-off-by areas, and forgetting to tell git send-email to suppress cc: when sending them out for internal review. Having that bounce would just be noisy for the developers involved. thanks, greg k-h
