Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-148495-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 08:52:40 -0400
From: Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
Cc: helpdesk@kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.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: <20240417-lively-zebu-of-tact-efc8f3@lemur>
References: <b452fd54-fdc6-47e4-8c26-6627f6b7eff3@leemhuis.info>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b452fd54-fdc6-47e4-8c26-6627f6b7eff3@leemhuis.info>

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 09:48:18AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Hi kernel.org helpdesk!
> 
> Could you please create the email alias
> do-not-apply-to-stable@kernel.org which redirects all mail to /dev/null,
> just like stable@kernel.org does?
> 
> That's an idea GregKH brought up a few days ago here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/2024041123-earthling-primarily-4656@gregkh/
> 
> To quote:
> 
> > How about:
> > 	cc: <do-not-apply-to-stable@kernel.org> # Reason goes here, and must be present
> > 
> > and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like
> > <stable@kernel.org> is?

That would make it into actual commits and probably irk maintainers and 
Linus, no? I also don't really love the idea of overloading email 
addresses with additional semantics. Using Cc: stable kinda makes sense, 
even if it's not a real email address (but it could become at some 
point), but this feels different.

In general, I feel this information belongs in the patch basement (the 
place where change-id, base-commit, etc goes). E.g.:

    stable-autosel: ignore
    [This fix requires a feature that is only present in mainline]

This allows passing along structured information that can be parsed by 
automated tooling without putting it into the commit.

> There was some discussion about using something shorter, but in the end
> there was no strong opposition and the thread ended a a few days ago.

I feel this is a significant change to the workflow, so I would like the 
workflows list to have another go at this topic. :)

-K