From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (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 79A1F2AD31 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:00:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721055609; cv=none; b=hB3J3WW0DIylykjIGq+VV0DcR5RTwvJkspXpPdAoY/13t2M7hyiSeJNvi2isnJfdiwRCGu2Hl3iyNQcruXr9cImctRG2tiORXeDa0bE625g8AXvqg0dBgWG61B0Dw9TPC3b5dSPT6X8mFNFwe26WCCydSvRgZLcZ7HWih/o1Rn4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721055609; c=relaxed/simple; bh=HYxvfx6i0EdAvYRx/lvoSOaXftd48yBTk/xajthOZ0c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Of0m2N0qccPzr2eKLcITATSjqWQKZ0O7RTSRAnil1mGsf953Zo7S9aNNt1GfpC4tfpovSZn7b+YBumvd7axV6Q7NWzaZzebbL4VrYpMhz9Ffm1QaVABEVHSEyOaJYRoVQY7FUI9ysFN/oKDuF0cr04vYZbnBGsQpGVrh3MAD6KE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=hYbSWlsB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="hYbSWlsB" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 3B75141A2D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1721055602; bh=9vFG1JikkWg5gG97WnELDJP28rKqzBtpnZTdW2qKvTs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=hYbSWlsBA8q5clXFPHAqSX8FhGHPy8XEDq235aIONweUYkPsCwxOy4gV5m9GOCNTi VPfpr2Gp3ENOhiL3BJRvWDRzradyoQqfAwRrEqTGwE+sx+WXZC26smlVT+HteSjJrU BhJlr6GZKnQ7MwC389NMpzj9+Uu6Z5ewESRIhIfDvzjLsabTRGc+lBlkJx0h2aBvyf 0Iumv0VP4NUjwuQSicpswEPEmzJknjCzxZDPg6pQ1z3HrXQ8UU2cB8zuPwfXwgpgWn qMrhKEbvb2DZvgyXlORPbcOcRrZQqKr4DluY9no+DF2oR8S7XLMsxGULMP9iVrFPiv ljT6FOBenJJmA== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:5e00:625::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3B75141A2D; Mon, 15 Jul 2024 15:00:02 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Greg KH , Alexandre Belloni Cc: Mimi Zohar , Linus Torvalds , James Bottomley , Sasha Levin , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: Proposal: Enhancing Commit Tagging for Stable Kernel Branches In-Reply-To: <2024071515-zestfully-womankind-1901@gregkh> References: <0e6c7c8ed259dcb50631c6fdc3d86d3080bdc6f3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <2024071528-cahoots-reacquire-9eab@gregkh> <3a357a63f67f3e6aff5e6d020d40b51fa24e0280.camel@linux.ibm.com> <202407151434198c3715e9@mail.local> <2024071515-zestfully-womankind-1901@gregkh> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 09:00:01 -0600 Message-ID: <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 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 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. Thanks, jon