Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-148173-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:48:56 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>, helpdesk@kernel.org,
        "workflows@vger.kernel.org" <workflows@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Please create the email alias do-not-apply-to-stable@kernel.org
 -> /dev/null
Message-ID: <Zh+M+NWKbpQeT/Z6@1wt.eu>
References: <b452fd54-fdc6-47e4-8c26-6627f6b7eff3@leemhuis.info>
 <20240417090918.77360289@sal.lan>
 <2024041715-calorie-late-c4de@gregkh>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2024041715-calorie-late-c4de@gregkh>

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:16:26AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > at the scripts used by stable developers - and maybe at the ML server - to
> > catch different variations won't hurt, as it sounds likely that people will
> > end messing up with a big name like "do-not-apply-to-stable", typing
> > instead things like:
> > 
> > 	do_not_apply_to_stable
> > 	dont-apply-to-stable
> > 
> > and other variants.
> 
> I want this very explicit that someone does not want this applied, and
> that it has a reason to do so.  And if getting the email right to do so
> is the issue with that, that's fine.  This is a very rare case that
> almost no one should normally hit.

For using a comparable approach in haproxy on a daily basis, I do see
the value in this. We just mark a lot of fixes "no backport needed" or
"no backport needed unless blablabla" for everything that is only
relevant to the dev tree, and that's a huge time saver for those working
on the backports later.

Maybe "not-for-stable" would be both shorter and easier to remember BTW ?

Regards,
Willy