From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0773B3A1A0 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:10:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721056250; cv=none; b=Aiq4QYncyGJuVFWKtTQrXVNoeVGpRhzCFpppb+MhO8gsiBGzyYHlp7DH+FvufbJnMQX4PxJnXTcojvyezqqJsa7sis3v6QcGIJkAe45UjNWrYbCrHctmsGreRrxKJVT+R08060XihMZ7TA7zyzgekrFXEDU+wPfArjFtaYGWfmA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721056250; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xRSFpngn5DvmG24qKuErykaLvqiOg05OThKmXTOAlYk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=XaX/H2UD2TVKYIUqpCTK4gXYJKr9SDLGpKCxfNg02ZqiOXzIgJai4+gcKa9o5zwLJKalDF+WQ9uVmM1XU8zObsZ5TXe0zry/RMFl7lWKjnAsbtgQB2meyzmvr7XrC3Nbm8N3DWDlB2/pumjIImYFXplIO5/eyQtIBnhHmBDfiaA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=z4tfcsKd; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="z4tfcsKd" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 319ACC32782; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:10:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1721056249; bh=xRSFpngn5DvmG24qKuErykaLvqiOg05OThKmXTOAlYk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=z4tfcsKdEoyXk4BOBYAdLUPNBrv5bl+h9/FB36EaJtCC3S5VSXcc7UXrszo3vq8Bk lswqp1Jqc8t3C+252gGWmllWRr7T2agocvOny8DVVLL2z7gcLabBgTU0qiaihUofKY No/MbFiqpDZgtM3XGj05EC7ItbRb5wG0bixbntRw= Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 17:10:46 +0200 From: Greg KH To: Jonathan Corbet Cc: Alexandre Belloni , Mimi Zohar , Linus Torvalds , James Bottomley , Sasha Levin , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: Proposal: Enhancing Commit Tagging for Stable Kernel Branches Message-ID: <2024071537-unskilled-boney-2fb6@gregkh> References: <0e6c7c8ed259dcb50631c6fdc3d86d3080bdc6f3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <2024071528-cahoots-reacquire-9eab@gregkh> <3a357a63f67f3e6aff5e6d020d40b51fa24e0280.camel@linux.ibm.com> <202407151434198c3715e9@mail.local> <2024071515-zestfully-womankind-1901@gregkh> <87h6cqya32.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87h6cqya32.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 09:00:01AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > Greg KH writes: > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 04:34:19PM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > >> I'm very surprised that it didn't cross anyone's mind yet that > >> contributors and maintainers don't bother using Cc: stable because they > >> don't care about stable for various reasons. So the behaviour is nether > >> good nor bad and doesn't have to be penalized. > > > > Totally true. The first rule of the stable tree is "it will not put > > additional burden on any developer or maintainer that doesn't want to > > participate in it." So if you don't want to deal with it, wonderful, > > don't take anything and just don't worry about it. > > I must confess I've been wondering about this, since I've seen the above > policy expressed a number of times over the years. Stable participation > is entirely optional. But then this conversation has included things > like: > > > All our documentation explicitly says that a stable tag is a *must*, > > we've been nagging folks to add it when they haven't, and we give them > > the spiel whenever we're asked why a certain fixes-only commit didn't > > make it into the stable trees. > > Sasha, https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZpQbQa-_8GkoiPhE@sashalap > > > Anyway, if people want to stick to the current, documented, process, > > great, but as-is, trying to get people to follow that is rough and not > > really working. > > Greg, https://lore.kernel.org/all/2024071528-cahoots-reacquire-9eab@gregkh I say this as many maintainers/developers get the "Fixes:" tag stuff mixed up. We had a very senior/core developer email us about this just this weekend, they thought they were following the proper process and didn't realize that "Cc: stable@" was the proper way instead. That's what I mean, for people who _WANT_ to participate, they get it wrong, as Linus points out, none of us read the documentation we have :( > So, to me, the real question here is: what is the actual policy? Are > developers and maintainers expected to put in stable tags the way they > are expected to add Signed-off-by, or is it a fully optional practice? > In the latter case, I'm not sure how much good messing with the tags > will do. It's optional, but if you DO want to do it right, please cc: stable@ as that's the documented way AND you will get proper integration into the process (i.e. emails when things fail to apply.) If you don't cc: stable@ but do just use "Fixes:" and haven't told us otherwise (see my previous email here), then us stable maintainers just have to guess and try to apply "Fixes:" commits as they obviously are fixing real problems that people have and report and want resolved. thanks, greg k-h