Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755021Ab3JRP4Z (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:56:25 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:47504 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753369Ab3JRP4X (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Oct 2013 11:56:23 -0400 From: Luis Henriques To: Bjorn Helgaas Cc: Ben Hutchings , Kamal Mostafa , "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" , "stable\@vger.kernel.org" , kernel-team@lists.ubuntu.com, Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [ 3.8.y.z extended stable ] Linux 3.8.13.11 stable review References: <1381419752-29733-1-git-send-email-kamal@canonical.com> <1382059831.2794.18.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:56:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Bjorn Helgaas's message of "Fri, 18 Oct 2013 09:41:40 -0600") Message-ID: <87ob6mwp24.fsf@canonical.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2466 Lines: 57 Bjorn Helgaas writes: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 11:37 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Kamal Mostafa wrote: >>> > This is the start of the review cycle for the Linux 3.8.13.11 stable kernel. >>> >>> Would anybody be interested in adding some sort of "stable" tag to the >>> subject lines of stable backport patches, e.g., instead of: >>> >>> [PATCH 001/104] htb: fix sign extension bug >>> >>> something like: >>> >>> [STABLE 3.8.13.11 001/104] htb: fix sign extension bug >>> >>> I don't mind having the stable patches on LKML, but it would be nice >>> if it were easier to distinguish stable backports from new patches. I >>> know the patches are nicely threaded behind this message, but some >>> readers don't really pay attention to that. >> >> I agree that some distinction is needed, but I'm not convinced about >> that precise format. I don't think it's worth including version >> components after the stable base version e.g. 3.2. And I think that >> including the version is a big enough clue that this is for a stable >> branch and not mainline. >> >> So I've changed my review script to put a subject prefix of 'PATCH 3.2' >> before the patch number (and similarly in the cover letter). But if >> there's consensus that a more explicit tag is wanted then I'll follow >> that. > > Selfishly, I would just like something gmail can filter on. I've seen > an "X-Extended-Stable: 3.8" header, which would be perfect, except > that I can't figure out how to create a gmail filter for random > headers. So I was hoping for something stable-specific in the subject > line, but that's just to compensate for gmail's limitations. > > Bjorn I don't really mind changing the scripts we're currently using to make life easier for filtering, although I would expect that the extra 'X-Extended-Stable' header would do the job (this was the reason we added it in the first place). Since the only header that can be parsed is the 'Subject:', it's just a matter of agreeing on the format (personally, I don't have any strong opinion on this). Cheers, -- Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/