Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-148979-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <b83b1f5b-a989-40b1-8874-85f75f17b4dc@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:13:27 -0700
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Please create the email alias do-not-apply-to-stable@kernel.org
 -> /dev/null
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, 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>
References: <b452fd54-fdc6-47e4-8c26-6627f6b7eff3@leemhuis.info>
 <20240417090918.77360289@sal.lan> <2024041715-calorie-late-c4de@gregkh>
 <Zh+M+NWKbpQeT/Z6@1wt.eu>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <Zh+M+NWKbpQeT/Z6@1wt.eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 4/17/24 01:48, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> 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 ?

Yes, "not-for-stable" looks like a good name to me.
-- 
Florian