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 44A9215359A; Thu, 2 May 2024 16:13:10 +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=1714666391; cv=none; b=bt7XuG5yohVYeRH/o7Ty4sI657roZ2oZx02C1h9tFCOZfDM5fzC6zxfC7BcrJ0zcyb1OEAAJOEhoeZ3pqY/yk7vsqsvw/0YkUYnkWZ7y9ntLe9CsOtlGVUCmLTYYJsYeB9ZFLqR70qWVvWO5r4r+GgS2JL4eDW/oneoB61mHlko= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1714666391; c=relaxed/simple; bh=3ftJAFzteXGUrfe+KMXY35rqWKZoRTdjLJlVvybiFH0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=sLJtkghzRaaNsUXZIiWwE0nFk8ZXzntVow3OtWa+MPkcBNc20GPjNrwXKRBgogThx1cPHeYR0Pt1DG7UtYEtoNdUlSv6m8F+NFepRClm5RvxtjYEycXwW2TWDajQG7LpQVOaoZeaFsBlnzSNOidO6cpntojNuit9DTqOmvopdoY= 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=kaAaIGbU; 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="kaAaIGbU" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 5C7F247C39 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1714666389; bh=3ftJAFzteXGUrfe+KMXY35rqWKZoRTdjLJlVvybiFH0=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=kaAaIGbUKdWbTUuTDlsr4IdH4JxM8p8ceGS2+/5tPCabcecisXJUCTNeg16WuPYtN CSnbMKnoc6WwU+WCxpHQPbYM5rPV8fKWf+n/aM24icKhqC2dH5TyrqLqa9YkFo0fPw 7b10BXa+Yw3Zty59Y1tSup/KN1HZSkISMejiVSjBAC355it6HngZUiASHuoL/R1/Jy TMhxyu4JbobQ0PloddCM5asvKLXEo5oyg+Ept3fJl8cn90wfu/zUZxgcMWErI86Bsw OAImw71TfOzeL5278AKJe5c73e7JViCHUMG4XQi83SJWZJizSvzCs1VhCRi4gwGrSc dJN8z3KSSXGSA== 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 5C7F247C39; Thu, 2 May 2024 16:13:09 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Thorsten Leemhuis , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Sasha Levin Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] docs: stable-kernel-rules: fine-tuning and 'no stable backport' tag In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 10:13:08 -0600 Message-ID: <87jzkc6vl7.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Thorsten Leemhuis writes: > After a recent discussion regarding "do we need a 'nobackport' tag" I > set out to create one change for stable-kernel-rules.rst. This is now > the last patch in the series, which links to that discussion with > all the details; the other stuff is fine-tuning that happened along the > way. I've applied the set, thanks. jon