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.
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
index 7bb16d42a51833..ebd57cb9277f7b 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
@@ -117,6 +117,12 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes:
Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the
appropriate versions from Fixes: tags.
+ * Prevent semi-automatic backporting of changes carrying a 'Fixes:' tag:
+
+ .. code-block:: none
+
+ Cc: <[email protected]> # no semi-automatic backport
+
* Delay pick up of patches:
.. code-block:: none
--
2.44.0
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.
>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 6 ++++++
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> index 7bb16d42a51833..ebd57cb9277f7b 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> @@ -117,6 +117,12 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes:
> Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the
> appropriate versions from Fixes: tags.
>
> + * Prevent semi-automatic backporting of changes carrying a 'Fixes:' tag:
> +
> + .. code-block:: none
> +
> + Cc: <[email protected]> # no semi-automatic backport
I do not understand, why are you saying "cc: stable" here if you do NOT
want it backported?
And what do you mean by "semi-automatic"?
confused,
greg k-h
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.
>>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 6 ++++++
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
>> index 7bb16d42a51833..ebd57cb9277f7b 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
>> @@ -117,6 +117,12 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes:
>> Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the
>> appropriate versions from Fixes: tags.
>>
>> + * Prevent semi-automatic backporting of changes carrying a 'Fixes:' tag:
>> +
>> + .. code-block:: none
>> +
>> + Cc: <[email protected]> # no semi-automatic backport
>
> 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/[email protected]/
And that somehow felt wrong to me, as discussed earlier in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
[1] e.g. if they don't have or want their whole subsystem marked as
'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/ignore_list
> And what do you mean by "semi-automatic"?
E.g. 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'. That was
the best term I came up with.
Ciao, Thorsten
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.
> >>
> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
> >> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 6 ++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> >> index 7bb16d42a51833..ebd57cb9277f7b 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> >> +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> >> @@ -117,6 +117,12 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes:
> >> Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the
> >> appropriate versions from Fixes: tags.
> >>
> >> + * Prevent semi-automatic backporting of changes carrying a 'Fixes:' tag:
> >> +
> >> + .. code-block:: none
> >> +
> >> + Cc: <[email protected]> # no semi-automatic backport
> >
> > 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/[email protected]/
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)
> And that somehow felt wrong to me, as discussed earlier in
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
>
> [1] e.g. if they don't have or want their whole subsystem marked as
> 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/ignore_list
>
> > And what do you mean by "semi-automatic"?
>
> 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: <[email protected]> # Reason goes here, and must be present
and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like
<[email protected]> is?
thanks,
greg k-h
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/[email protected]/
> 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: <[email protected]> # Reason goes here, and must be present
>
> and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like
> <[email protected]> is?
Totally fine with me, but that feels somewhat long and hard to type. How
about just '[email protected]' (or '[email protected]')?
Ciao, Thorsten
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/[email protected]/
> > 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: <[email protected]> # Reason goes here, and must be present
> >
> > and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like
> > <[email protected]> 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 '[email protected]' (or '[email protected]')?
More words are better :)
thanks,
greg k-h
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:13 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<[email protected]> 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/[email protected]/
> > > 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: <[email protected]> # Reason goes here, and must be present
> > >
> > > and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like
> > > <[email protected]> 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 '[email protected]' (or '[email protected]')?
>
> 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?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68korg
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
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
> <[email protected]> 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/[email protected]/
> > > > 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: <[email protected]> # Reason goes here, and must be present
> > > >
> > > > and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like
> > > > <[email protected]> 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 '[email protected]' (or '[email protected]')?
> >
> > 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
On 11.04.24 11:19, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:13 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <[email protected]> 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/[email protected]/
>>>> 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: <[email protected]> # Reason goes here, and must be present
>>>>
>>>> and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like
>>>> <[email protected]> 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 '[email protected]' (or '[email protected]')?
>>
>> 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?
Ask why the tag was set I guess. But yeah, that was among the minor
reasons why I had come up with "no semiautomatic stable backport" thing,
as it made the intention more clear. Maybe
[email protected]
could help and is even longer. But I might be getting into bikeshedding
territory here. :-D
Ciao, Thorsten
Cioao, Thorsten
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:57:04AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 11.04.24 11:19, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 11:13 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> > <[email protected]> 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/[email protected]/
> >>>> 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: <[email protected]> # Reason goes here, and must be present
> >>>>
> >>>> and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like
> >>>> <[email protected]> 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 '[email protected]' (or '[email protected]')?
> >>
> >> 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?
>
> Ask why the tag was set I guess. But yeah, that was among the minor
> reasons why I had come up with "no semiautomatic stable backport" thing,
> as it made the intention more clear. Maybe
>
> [email protected]
>
> could help and is even longer. But I might be getting into bikeshedding
> territory here. :-D
That one would not work as I would then manually backport the commit :)
Actually, one can say that all of the commits are manually backported as
I review them all that are cc: stable when I apply them. So while
bikeshedding is fun, this would mean the opposite of what you intend.
thanks,
greg k-h