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 DB33C13D89C; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 06:56:58 +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=1712818619; cv=none; b=nC3UYLaTKGTLsqGMPS6YTW082hIj/1QwSaqYe4lLiluX1LI9f5XV8qByrdiBUB08KdrgSAOjsSm137K9ba78aiAE4C7Ing9dsXlpPE9f40/iFCge1qYopNiFcCyJj7e+dR44qGeuOc9RXKejndkHFeE9PJ3PXn/G1MCaSbGm9kI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712818619; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yVqJ3A0xnmgb2uzbb/DoieZ74OGykytejpIxQdzl9Uc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=LAFtCmLU3/zCou5g0UicCHAZkoEFbb9sZURnYiyee/tEwXA4EsOFTsfgTz40BsNFPS3Z+R76o8VvVhF51OsXel9V0fF/JtKOyQL/y7gC2fiiSt8n8DC3NGJ70yG9AjCH8TBZjo+Dp1pFJTL+8U7F4omCgnGol5YG8MZP0//sJU0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=Qy84Hba4; 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="Qy84Hba4" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0123BC4163A; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 06:56:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1712818618; bh=yVqJ3A0xnmgb2uzbb/DoieZ74OGykytejpIxQdzl9Uc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Qy84Hba4HQsqQD67bhS+Rbn4Um+fuicRMAp8WrRu38cdqYlVmdZY8SbEgct4pFPRX B0xpQC1jSI2/YqCHEmdcIo1Q2C+qfp6APrFt/5lhU/3fw9zgcogEbkvr00onB3nzYQ jRqyoJqzxJ4oBGXpqikTHHB78gKnwJdLTk3Km/Bs= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 08:56:55 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Thorsten Leemhuis Cc: Sasha Levin , Jonathan Corbet , stable@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: call mainline by its name and change example Message-ID: <2024041130-trickster-naturist-0448@gregkh> References: <2024041156-nintendo-paddling-eaad@gregkh> <963811ba-6c12-47d1-942e-ba7bcf93a766@leemhuis.info> <2024041127-attach-removed-f9f0@gregkh> <898e813d-883c-4ccb-91ad-03aff40d59e3@leemhuis.info> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <898e813d-883c-4ccb-91ad-03aff40d59e3@leemhuis.info> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 08:50:19AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 11.04.24 08:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 07:50:29AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> On 11.04.24 07:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 07:25:05AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >>>> > >>>> - Cc: # after 4 weeks in mainline > >>>> + Cc: # after 6 weeks in a stable mainline release > >>> > >>> I do not know what "stable mainline release" means here, sorry. "after > >>> 4 weeks in mainline" means "after in Linus's tree for 4 weeks, but > >>> Linus's tree is not "stable mainline". > >> > >> I meant a proper mainline release like 6.7 or 6.8 to make it obvious > >> that this does not mean a "pre-release". > >> > >> I actually had used the term "proper mainline release" earlier in a > >> draft, but a quick search on the net showed that this is not really used > >> out there. "stable mainline release" is not popular either, but seemed > >> to be a better match; I also considered "final mainline release", but > >> that felt odd. > >> > >> It feels like there must be some better term my mind just stumbles to > >> come up with. Please help. :-D > > > > Well, what is the goal here? Just put it in words, I have seen stuff > > like: > > Cc: # wait until -rc3 > > Cc: # wait until 6.1 is released > > Cc: # after -rc2 > > > > and so on. > > > > Just pick a specific time/release might be better? "after X weeks" is > > assuming that we all know and remember how many weeks something > > happened... > > My reasoning was: a developer that submits a patch has no full control > over when the patch mainlined -- and plans sometimes change, too. > > So a patch that was meant to go into 6.1-rc with a tag like "# wait > until 4 weeks after 6.1 is released" might only be mainlined for 6.2-rc1 > -- and then the tag does not express the developers intention. I've normally seen patches end up in Linus's tree "too early" more often (i.e. cc: stable for stuff that has never been in a stable tree yet), but sure, I can see how changes can also take too long. > But that might be a corner case that we could ignore. So maybe "# wait > until 4 weeks after 6.1 is released" is the better example (from what > I've heard something like that is what developer would like to have > sometimes). Yes, referencing off of a fixed point like a release is best as that's much easier for humans to calculate. Also because, the original "after 4 weeks", doesn't give me a reference point to judge what the starting time is easily. Yes, I have tools for that, but most people don't. So how about changing it to use the "fixed point" reference please? The phrasing "after -rc3" is probably what most people almost always want anyway, given the huge churn that -rc1 is. thanks, greg k-h