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 5DA3E217F56 for ; Wed, 6 Aug 2025 07:00:52 +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=1754463652; cv=none; b=iMnTmvp/h/Htv74iQvu/LhueTYpKTdEzoESH2f9AbzHackaK8ia9gntkTP08mWSF6G6bmteqhJT1THwwyHEcFBxhPRuhjtgS1kLh0hHiGNwf6kJ/ngXSKwa3F+d4AAfyGdLSW0j7SCnMJ3djTXmAtTPtkQSeraN+JkoH5qJkphY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754463652; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5syjNZVhz6dDOHIOX7a/lZTSrFJxcj8DLCbYn58fnXY=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=OXI9lENNq1u8UEqfpMb6W0TZXHxUsiD/m0zVzSkXGwpTb7VSEMmOVQnzrp/2Qnx2dhhGit59XYw82p4XI3Q9FtPO9HppYy+v29sO8AWIBFbgE7swUurRK00GrMviaLFkjyvckHKEjfDLjtQ/kL616DUWYYhL59vd+FR933et+fo= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=VLdiDOAj; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="VLdiDOAj" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7F609C4CEF9; Wed, 6 Aug 2025 07:00:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1754463651; bh=5syjNZVhz6dDOHIOX7a/lZTSrFJxcj8DLCbYn58fnXY=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=VLdiDOAj9oN4384IyILPdqbWfe+jRZpIyxYeDKMiiS7l6pek1v5xcHQjSt0nN60pS SCkafGNQVnEoueaTKJ0/7mHHZnI9pcXJTdrI/s0p87pKeILG4SbYghch27ZOiOHcK1 KveQX83mu6vgLg7IYMJViREIyuEIdqwaI5Qthd3lG5FVxYVwAFKf/NyTy1gDYm028I TqW0V0IOAo3mx3JkfTcqLkVr/mGLzIy3wJXYmcB7fSSPWGOwUx/3OZUcNuETY2F3qj VJIpfM3v2GfUWWVPMdEwLn3Z4YlTJhk+kzAknBaSB4DU/JbD6uftQTQWzRLbEof29Q 9PkfC/CXlEkgQ== Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 09:00:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Takashi Iwai cc: Greg KH , James Bottomley , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] The amount of -stable emails In-Reply-To: <87ectprmmg.wl-tiwai@suse.de> Message-ID: <234rn3r2-qss4-s6s4-8o69-81o79rqp9s54@xreary.bet> References: <162r47q9-rp56-67so-7032-2r1rn36p03n6@fhfr.pbz> <2025080515-grandpa-prankster-ee83@gregkh> <87ectprmmg.wl-tiwai@suse.de> 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 On Wed, 6 Aug 2025, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > The question is whether it's really worth all the e-mail traffic this > > is generating, if people are just filtering those away. > > > > For context searches if some particular information regarding stable > > patch history is needed, we can still do lore/lei queries nicely and > > easily. Is there any other usecase (that people are actually actively > > using) for it? > > In rare cases, patches are incorrectly applied. That can't be > verified without the actual patch. > > Usually it happens with a cherry-pick with fuzz, so we might be able > to catch suspected ones, but the inspection of the patch is still > needed. Sure, but you have to do that pro-actively (in case you care in the first place, of course). Doesn't then lore/lei provide you with the equal functionality? -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs