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.
Ciao, Thorsten
---
v1->v2:
* Add reviewed-by tag from Greg to the first patch.
* Change the backport example in 2 as suggested by Greg.
* Improve description of patch 3 while also making the change remove a
level of indenting.
* Add patch explaining [email protected] (w/o @vger.)
* Move the patch adding a 'make AUTOSEL et. al. ignore a change' flag to
the end of the series and use [email protected] as
suggested my Konstantin and ACKed by Greg.
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Thorsten Leemhuis (5):
docs: stable-kernel-rules: reduce redundancy
docs: stable-kernel-rules: call mainline by its name and change
example
docs: stable-kernel-rules: remove code-labels tags and a indention
level
docs: stable-kernel-rules: explain use of [email protected] (w/o
@vger.)
docs: stable-kernel-rules: create special tag to flag 'no backporting'
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 234 ++++++++----------
1 file changed, 110 insertions(+), 124 deletions(-)
base-commit: 5eb4573ea63d0c83bf58fb7c243fc2c2b6966c02
--
2.44.0
Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]> 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