Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] The amount of -stable emails

[Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1426 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 12:28:28PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> I do care about the patches that are marked but fail to apply. I like
> getting those emails. Although I still don't have the time to fix them :-p

Indeed, and those are infrequent enough that they're noticable.

> Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> > One thing I'd really like to see there would be to avoid sending each
> > patch separately for every stable version, that just blows up the mail
> > volume hugely especially for those of us with subsystems that carry a
> > lot of quirks.  I'm sure the range of versions something is being pulled
> > back to could be expressed in a single mail instead, it's always some
> > range of versions being processed en masse rather than just a single
> > version.  The per version cover letter is more useful for replying with
> > test results but that doesn't need the whole series.

> Yes, I agree that a digest of all the autoselects would be good.

> Possibly even a link to the stable git tree of the commit each was added to
> would work.

It's not just the autoselects, you get one batch of mails for AUTOSEL if
the patches were picked up that way, then another batch of mails when
the patches are added to a queue then yet another when the stable -rc
goes out for testing.  Possibly more that I'm forgetting, and each of
those is per version.  Now you mention it there's some redundancy there
too...

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]