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 4FAB714430D; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:53:09 +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=1712829190; cv=none; b=TEyMnB5qBAqCzEdpT93P24br5cSJNK06+ZDzHcl2YX7ArmcJU/QzeIMdbBBvi8mhSm7DB6jqA1sjgQcq80RMjwb1snLl1RjYXWFOApA4IZ8Am1DjxOvcCEipEQHXAZ8z9v/B9O4jyt9BOcX5XIY4OfFXx6BCs7dhVLSFmBgO7Qs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712829190; c=relaxed/simple; bh=8SQ0a8KIXg+9Q6wH7l7+OtKBY0yEhH+2/6JYQpE8re8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=vB5hEHyywfhcvcv+fvEEZf8d2X/uyJN/Hy7ui94BBySY4H4gPvrGl+P+/zSeMDVYQCd5dqresws/5G84xkgk4Fd0ExQTHfWb4jkyfOtB8FUkOeKall+CrssRv61xTpUhTcNQ511UOZG3kiozxgDKR/PWO3bk5+pHiz3wtzzvls4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=G9gbSkp7; 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="G9gbSkp7" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A9EEC433F1; Thu, 11 Apr 2024 09:53:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1712829189; bh=8SQ0a8KIXg+9Q6wH7l7+OtKBY0yEhH+2/6JYQpE8re8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=G9gbSkp7oEzeuI3Q0PgtuXj1sVQzFoshmy35z6knqC8VODQ8M+jRQp7yJomxLQOXD dNeFOGL+XQjg1Lf2s1UGNC+/Gb7l6z6PIuHfU5o20nIO11lpOhSIOQ3Ur3vC7CZ+k4 PEcm0JAXlJGRqkpmoG1eD++BQeSEoTmEozBpgA5s= Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 11:53:07 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Thorsten Leemhuis , 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 2/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport" Message-ID: <2024041151-reflected-dancing-607a@gregkh> References: <2024041156-backache-dolly-a420@gregkh> <3f395eca-fc24-469b-b5fc-de47ab2a6861@leemhuis.info> <2024041123-earthling-primarily-4656@gregkh> <2024041159-undone-deacon-3170@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:19:57AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:13 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 09:50:24AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > On 11.04.24 09:40, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 08:59:39AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > >> On 11.04.24 07:29, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > >>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 07:25:04AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > >>>> Some developers deliberately steer clear of 'Fixes:' tags to prevent > > > >>>> changes from being backported semi-automatically by the stable team. > > > >>>> That somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of the Fixes: tag, > > > >>>> hence point out there is an alternative to reach the same effect. > > > > [...] > > > >>> I do not understand, why are you saying "cc: stable" here if you do NOT > > > >>> want it backported? > > > >> Because the only alternative the developers have to make the stable team > > > >> not pick a single patch[1] is to deliberately omit a Fixes: tag even if > > > >> the patch normally should have one. Like it was done here: > > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1712226175.git.antony.antony@secunet.com/ > > > > That feels odd, but ok I now see the need for this for some minor set of > > > > changes (i.e. this has rarely come up in the past 15+ years) > > > > > > > > [...] > > > >> E.g. 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'. That was > > > >> the best term I came up with. > > > > > > > > Thinking about it more, I think we need to be much more explicit, and > > > > provide the reason why. > > > > > > > > How about: > > > > cc: # Reason goes here, and must be present > > > > > > > > and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like > > > > is? > > > > > > Totally fine with me, but that feels somewhat long and hard to type. > > > > I want it long and hard to type and very very explicit that this is what > > the developer/maintainer wants to have happen (again, because this is > > such a rare occurrence.) > > > > > How > > > about just 'no-stable@kernel.org' (or 'nostable@kernel.org')? > > > > More words are better :) > > And after that, someone discovers this turns out to be (a hard > dependency for) a very critical fix that does need backporting? Then we backport it and let the person know like always. thanks, greg k-h