Re: Proposal: Enhancing Commit Tagging for Stable Kernel Branches

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Thu, 2024-07-18 at 09:48 -0500, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 09:34:04AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
[...]
> > It's no "regression", per se, but
> > a new feature that didn't exist in the past, after all.
> > 
> 
> If it's not a regression then don't add a Fixes tag.

Really, no, that's what got us into this issue in the first place: if
you only tag regressions with Fixes:, then we don't need cc:stable. 
Fixes: should be for anything that updated what was done in that prior
commit (including white space and spellings).  That way there's no
debate about whether it should apply and it's easy for Maintainers to
verify.

cc:stable should be for stuff that is backport worthy (regressions
etc), which does require some thought and a bit of guesswork.  And if
something later proves to be a bug fix that wasn't tagged cc:stable it
can be sent to stable later (and the Fixes: tag that wouldn't otherwise
have been applied under your proposed rule helps to locate what trees
it should be backported to).

James