docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

Document how to delay backporting or send a note to the stable team using shell-style inline comments attached to stable tags.

CC Greg KH <[email protected]>

CC Sasha Levin <[email protected]>

CC Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>

---
 Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 22 ++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +0 -0

index 51df1197d5ab..6e4026dd6882 100644

Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +8 -0

+inline comment (see below for details). Once the patch is merged it will be
+applied to the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the
+author or subsystem maintainer.
 
 .. _option_2:
 

@@ -139,6 +140,21 @@ The tag has the meaning of:
 
 For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
 
+To delay pick up of patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, use the following
+format:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+

Quoted 19 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis

Document how to delay backporting or send a note to the stable team using shell-style inline comments attached to stable tags.

CC Greg KH <[email protected]>

CC Sasha Levin <[email protected]>

CC Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>

---
 Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 22 ++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +0 -0

index 51df1197d5ab..6e4026dd6882 100644
@@ -55,9 +55,10 @@ To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
 
      Cc: [email protected]
 

Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag · line 58

Quoted 4 lines

Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +1 -3

-in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be applied to
-the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author
-or subsystem maintainer.
+in the sign-off area; to accompany a note to the stable team, use a shell-style

Is that how a ';' is really used? I never can remember, so it's an honest question here :)

[...]
This looks great to me, so I'll be glad to take it.

Document how to delay backporting or send a note to the stable team using shell-style inline comments attached to stable tags.

CC Greg KH <[email protected]>

CC Sasha Levin <[email protected]>

CC Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>

---
 Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 22 ++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +9 -3

index 51df1197d5ab..6e4026dd6882 100644
@@ -55,9 +55,10 @@ To have the patch automatically included in the stable tree, add the tag
 
      Cc: [email protected]
 
-in the sign-off area. Once the patch is merged it will be applied to
-the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author
-or subsystem maintainer.
+in the sign-off area; to accompany a note to the stable team, use a shell-style
+inline comment (see below for details). Once the patch is merged it will be
+applied to the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the
+author or subsystem maintainer.
 
 .. _option_2:
 

@@ -139,6 +140,21 @@ The tag has the meaning of:
 
 For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
 
+To delay pick up of patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, use the following
+format:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+

Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +0 -0

 Following the submission:
 
  - The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023, Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted 5 lines

Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +5 -0

+To delay pick up of patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, use the following
+format:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+

Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst The tag has the meaning of: · line 157

Quoted 10 lines

Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +10 -0

+     Cc: <[email protected]> # after 4 weeks in mainline
+
+For any other requests related to patches submitted via :ref:`option_1`, just
+add a note to the stable tag. This for example can be used to point out known
+problems:
+
+.. code-block:: none
+
+     Cc: <[email protected]> # see patch description, needs adjustments for >= 6.3
+

To me, this seems like promoting *any* free text after the #, making it harder to parse in scripts.

Of course, I'm only ever producing this, and never consuming, so if the manual reading is fine for the stable developers, who am I to argue.

Tweak some of the rule text to make things more straight forward, with the goal to stick closely to the intend of the old text:

* put the "it or equivalent fix must be ustream" rule at the top, as it's one of the most important ones that at the same time often seems to be missed by developers.
* "It must fix only one thing" was dropped, as that is almost always a thing that needs to be handled earlier when the change is mainlined. Furthermore, this is already indirectly covered by the "Separate your changes" section in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst which the rules already point to.
* six other rules are in the end one rule with clarifications; structure the text accordingly to make it a lot easier to follow and understand the intend.

CC Greg KH <[email protected]>

CC Sasha Levin <[email protected]>

CC Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>

Signed-off-by Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>

---
 Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 39 +++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +12 -20

index 6e4026dd6882..85d5d2368034 100644
@@ -6,31 +6,30 @@ Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux -stable releases
 Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the
 "-stable" tree:
 
+ - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
  - It must be obviously correct and tested.
  - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
- - It must fix only one thing.
- - It must fix a real bug that bothers people (not a, "This could be a
-   problem..." type thing).
- - It must fix a problem that causes a build error (but not for things
-   marked CONFIG_BROKEN), an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real
-   security issue, or some "oh, that's not good" issue.  In short, something
-   critical.
- - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
-   be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
-   As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
-   regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel
-   maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it
-   exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.
- - New device IDs and quirks are also accepted.
- - No "theoretical race condition" issues, unless an explanation of how the
-   race can be exploited is also provided.
- - It cannot contain any "trivial" fixes in it (spelling changes,
-   whitespace cleanups, etc).
  - It must follow the
    :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
    rules.
- - It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).
-
+ - It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID.
+   To elaborate on the former:
+
+   - It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security
+     issue, a hardware quirk, a build error (but not for things marked
+     CONFIG_BROKEN), or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something
+     critical.
+   - Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also
+     be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue.
+     As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle
+     regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel

Optimize the text flow to make things more straight forward to follow:

* remove a subheading without real purpose
* after outlining the three options add a section that explains them in more detail; move the "Following the submission" text that set in the middle of this to a later place in the document
* a few small clarifications along the way

This is a RFC and a bit rough for now. I only set down to create the first of the three patches. But while doing so I noticed a few things that seemed odd for me with my background on writing and editing texts. So I just quickly performed a few additional changes to fix those to see if the stable team would appreciate them, as this document is clearly their domain.

If those changes or even the initial patch are not welcomed, I'll simply drop them. I'd totally understand this, as texts like these are delicate and it's easy to accidentlly change the intent or the meaning while adjusting things in good faith.

At the same time I might be willing to do a few more changes, if people like the direction this takes and want a bit more fine tuning.

```
.. _stable_kernel_rules:

Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux -stable releases
===============================================================

Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the "-stable" tree:

- It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).

- It must be obviously correct and tested.
- It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
- It must follow the :ref:Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches> rules.
- It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID. To elaborate on the former:

- It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security issue, a hardware quirk, a build error (but not for things marked CONFIG_BROKEN), or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something critical.

- Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue. As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.

- No "This could be a problem..." type of things like a "theoretical race condition", unless an explanation of how the bug can be exploited is also provided.
- No "trivial" fixes without benefit for users (spelling changes, whitespace cleanups, etc).

Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
----------------------------------------------------

.. note::

Security patches should not be handled (solely) by the -stable review process but should follow the procedures in :ref:Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst <securitybugs>.

There are three options to submit a change to -stable trees:

1. Add a 'stable tag' to the description of a patch you want to mainline.
2. Ask the stable team to pick up a patch already mainlined.
3. Submit a patch to the stable team that is equivalent to a mainlined patch.

The sections below describe each of the options in more detail.

:ref:option_1 is **strongly** preferred, it is the easiest and most common. :ref:option_2 and :ref:option_3 are more useful if the patch isn't deemed worthy at the time it is submitted for mainline inclusion (for instance, because it deserves more regression testing first). :ref:option_3 is especially useful if the original upstream patch needs to be adjusted to be included in older series (for example the backport needs some special handling due to e.g. API changes).

.. _option_1:

Option 1
********

To have a patch you submit for mainline inclusion automatically picked up for the stable tree later, add the tag

.. code-block:: none

Cc [email protected]

in the sign-off area. Once the patch is mainlined it will be applied to the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author or subsystem maintainer.

You can add a note with additional instructions using a shell-style inline comment:

* To specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking use the following format in the sign-off area:

.. code-block:: none

     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x: fd21073: sched: Fix affinity logic
     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x
     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

The tag sequence has the meaning of:

.. code-block:: none

git cherry-pick a1f84a3
git cherry-pick 1b9508f
git cherry-pick fd21073
git cherry-pick <this commit>

* For patches that may have kernel version prerequisites specify them using the following format in the sign-off area:

.. code-block:: none

     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x

The tag has the meaning of:

.. code-block:: none

git cherry-pick <this commit>

For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.

* To delay pick up of patches, use the following format:

.. code-block:: none

Cc <[email protected]> # after 4 weeks in mainline

* For any other requests, just add a note to the stable tag. This for example can be used to point out known problems:

.. code-block:: none

Cc <[email protected]> # see patch description, needs adjustments for >= 6.3

.. _option_2:

Option 2
********

If the patch already has been merged to Linus' tree, send an email to [email protected] containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID, why you think it should be applied, and what kernel version you wish it to be applied to.

.. _option_3:

Option 3
********

Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to [email protected] and mention the kernel version you wish it to be applied to.

When doing so, you must note the upstream commit ID in the changelog of your submission with a separate line above the commit text, like this:

.. code-block:: none

commit <sha1> upstream.

or alternatively:

.. code-block:: none

[ Upstream commit <sha1> ]

If the patch submitted using this option deviates from the original upstream patch (for example because it had to be adjusted for the older API), this must be very clearly documented and justified in the patch description.

Following the submission
------------------------

The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the queue, or a NAK if the patch is rejected. This response might take a few days, according to the developer's schedules.

If accepted, the patch will be added to the -stable queue, for review by other developers and by the relevant subsystem maintainer.
[...]
```

Quoted 7 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis

This is a RFC and a bit rough for now. I only set down to create the first of the three patches. But while doing so I noticed a few things that seemed odd for me with my background on writing and editing texts. So I just quickly performed a few additional changes to fix those to see if the stable team would appreciate them, as this document is clearly their domain.

Quoted 7 lines

If those changes or even the initial patch are not welcomed, I'll simply drop them. I'd totally understand this, as texts like these are delicate and it's easy to accidentlly change the intent or the meaning while adjusting things in good faith.

At the same time I might be willing to do a few more changes, if people like the direction this takes and want a bit more fine tuning.

FWIW, in case anyone wonders what other changes I'd do, let me quote the text as it looks after these changes and give a few examples inline:

Quoted 6 lines

```
.. _stable_kernel_rules:

Everything you ever wanted to know about Linux -stable releases
===============================================================

Quoted 4 lines

Rules on what kind of patches are accepted, and which ones are not, into the "-stable" tree:

- It or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linus' tree (upstream).

s/Linus' tree/mainline/g (just a detail, but I think that is the term more commonly used and known)

Quoted 8 lines

- It must be obviously correct and tested.
- It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context.
- It must follow the :ref:Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches> rules.
- It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID. To elaborate on the former:

Quoted 4 lines

- It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security issue, a hardware quirk, a build error (but not for things marked CONFIG_BROKEN), or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something critical.

s/ In short, something critical.//

Contradicts the "real bug that bothers people" somewhat and IMHO does not add anything. But maybe that's just me.

Quoted 6 lines

- Serious issues as reported by a user of a distribution kernel may also be considered if they fix a notable performance or interactivity issue. As these fixes are not as obvious and have a higher risk of a subtle regression they should only be submitted by a distribution kernel maintainer and include an addendum linking to a bugzilla entry if it exists and additional information on the user-visible impact.

/me wonders if that is really providing additional insight and if this s setting the bar a bit higher than it's really in practice

Quoted 23 lines

- No "This could be a problem..." type of things like a "theoretical race condition", unless an explanation of how the bug can be exploited is also provided.
- No "trivial" fixes without benefit for users (spelling changes, whitespace cleanups, etc).

Procedure for submitting patches to the -stable tree
----------------------------------------------------

.. note::

Security patches should not be handled (solely) by the -stable review process but should follow the procedures in :ref:Documentation/process/security-bugs.rst <securitybugs>.

There are three options to submit a change to -stable trees:

1. Add a 'stable tag' to the description of a patch you want to mainline.
2. Ask the stable team to pick up a patch already mainlined.
3. Submit a patch to the stable team that is equivalent to a mainlined patch.

The sections below describe each of the options in more detail.

Quoted 7 lines

:ref:option_1 is **strongly** preferred, it is the easiest and most common. :ref:option_2 and :ref:option_3 are more useful if the patch isn't deemed worthy at the time it is submitted for mainline inclusion (for instance, because it deserves more regression testing first). :ref:option_3 is especially useful if the original upstream patch needs to be adjusted to be included in older series (for example the backport needs some special handling due to e.g. API changes).

Tweaked para:

:ref:option_1 is **strongly** preferred, it is the easiest and most common.

:ref:option_2 is meant for changes that were not deemed wort

including in stable at the time it was submitted for mainline inclusion (for instance, because the full scale of the problem was not yet known).

:ref:option_3 is an alternative to the two earlier options for cases where a mainlined patch needs adjustments to apply in older series (for example due to API changes).

Quoted 51 lines

.. _option_1:

Option 1
********

To have a patch you submit for mainline inclusion automatically picked up for the stable tree later, add the tag

.. code-block:: none

Cc [email protected]

in the sign-off area. Once the patch is mainlined it will be applied to the stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author or subsystem maintainer.

You can add a note with additional instructions using a shell-style inline comment:

* To specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking use the following format in the sign-off area:

.. code-block:: none

     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x: fd21073: sched: Fix affinity logic
     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x
     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

The tag sequence has the meaning of:

.. code-block:: none

git cherry-pick a1f84a3
git cherry-pick 1b9508f
git cherry-pick fd21073
git cherry-pick <this commit>

* For patches that may have kernel version prerequisites specify them using the following format in the sign-off area:

.. code-block:: none

     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x

The tag has the meaning of:

.. code-block:: none

Quoted 3 lines

git cherry-pick <this commit>

For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.

/me wonders if something like a "note, such tagging is unnecessary if the appropriate version can be derived from a Fixes: tag" would be appropriate and worth it here

Quoted 49 lines

* To delay pick up of patches, use the following format:

.. code-block:: none

Cc <[email protected]> # after 4 weeks in mainline

* For any other requests, just add a note to the stable tag. This for example can be used to point out known problems:

.. code-block:: none

Cc <[email protected]> # see patch description, needs adjustments for >= 6.3

.. _option_2:

Option 2
********

If the patch already has been merged to Linus' tree, send an email to [email protected] containing the subject of the patch, the commit ID, why you think it should be applied, and what kernel version you wish it to be applied to.

.. _option_3:

Option 3
********

Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to [email protected] and mention the kernel version you wish it to be applied to.

When doing so, you must note the upstream commit ID in the changelog of your submission with a separate line above the commit text, like this:

.. code-block:: none

commit <sha1> upstream.

or alternatively:

.. code-block:: none

[ Upstream commit <sha1> ]

If the patch submitted using this option deviates from the original upstream patch (for example because it had to be adjusted for the older API), this must be very clearly documented and justified in the patch description.

Quoted 6 lines

Following the submission
------------------------

The sender will receive an ACK when the patch has been accepted into the queue, or a NAK if the patch is rejected. This response might take a few days, according to the developer's schedules.

s/developer's schedules/schedules of the stable team members/

Quoted 10 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis

Quoted 7 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis

- It must either fix a real bug that bothers people or just add a device ID. To elaborate on the former:

- It fixes a problem like an oops, a hang, data corruption, a real security issue, a hardware quirk, a build error (but not for things marked CONFIG_BROKEN), or some "oh, that's not good" issue. In short, something critical.

Quoted 4 lines

s/ In short, something critical.//

Contradicts the "real bug that bothers people" somewhat and IMHO does not add anything. But maybe that's just me.

Agreed, it can be dropped.

Quoted 11 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis

* For patches that may have kernel version prerequisites specify them using the following format in the sign-off area:

.. code-block:: none

     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x

The tag has the meaning of:

.. code-block:: none

Quoted 3 lines

git cherry-pick <this commit>

For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.

/me wonders if something like a "note, such tagging is unnecessary if the appropriate version can be derived from a Fixes: tag" would be appropriate and worth it here

Quoted 17 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis

Quoted 14 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis

* For patches that may have kernel version prerequisites specify them using the following format in the sign-off area:

.. code-block:: none

     Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x

The tag has the meaning of:

.. code-block:: none

git cherry-pick <this commit>

For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.

Quoted 3 lines

/me wonders if something like a "note, such tagging is unnecessary if the appropriate version can be derived from a Fixes: tag" would be appropriate and worth it here

Having these comments in the patch itself makes it easier to determine whether a fix addresses a recent regression or an issue that's been around since forever without having to copy-paste and look up each commit in the Fixes tag(s).

This is a RFC and a bit rough for now. I only set down to create the first of the three patches. But while doing so I noticed a few things that seemed odd for me with my background on writing and editing texts. So I just quickly performed a few additional changes to fix those to see if the stable team would appreciate them, as this document is clearly their domain.

If those changes or even the initial patch are not welcomed, I'll simply drop them. I'd totally understand this, as texts like these are delicate and it's easy to accidentlly change the intent or the meaning while adjusting things in good faith.

At the same time I might be willing to do a few more changes, if people like the direction this takes and want a bit more fine tuning.

Quoted 12 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis

This is a RFC and a bit rough for now. I only set down to create the first of the three patches. But while doing so I noticed a few things that seemed odd for me with my background on writing and editing texts. So I just quickly performed a few additional changes to fix those to see if the stable team would appreciate them, as this document is clearly their domain.

If those changes or even the initial patch are not welcomed, I'll simply drop them. I'd totally understand this, as texts like these are delicate and it's easy to accidentlly change the intent or the meaning while adjusting things in good faith.

Quoted 2 lines

At the same time I might be willing to do a few more changes, if people like the direction this takes and want a bit more fine tuning.

I do like it, many thanks for taking the time to do this work, it's much appreciated.

If you resend the first 2 as a non-RFC patch,

the last one needs some more work as mentioned.

Quoted 13 lines · Greg KH

Quoted 12 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis

This is a RFC and a bit rough for now. I only set down to create the first of the three patches. But while doing so I noticed a few things that seemed odd for me with my background on writing and editing texts. So I just quickly performed a few additional changes to fix those to see if the stable team would appreciate them, as this document is clearly their domain.

If those changes or even the initial patch are not welcomed, I'll simply drop them. I'd totally understand this, as texts like these are delicate and it's easy to accidentlly change the intent or the meaning while adjusting things in good faith.

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 2 lines

At the same time I might be willing to do a few more changes, if people like the direction this takes and want a bit more fine tuning.

I do like it, many thanks for taking the time to do this work, it's much appreciated.

If you resend the first 2 as a non-RFC patch,

BTW: thx again for your uplifting feedback! And in case anyone missed it, I send those two patches out yesterday here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/

Quoted 1 line

the last one needs some more work as mentioned.

I have that one in a separate branch now and spitted into four patches; the first three basically move text around, which results in a much cleaner diff for the last patch that contains actual content changes. While working on the latter I noticed one more thing:

```
    .. warning::
       The -stable-rc tree is a snapshot in time of the stable-queue
tree and
       will change frequently, hence will be rebased often. It should
only be
       used for testing purposes (e.g. to be consumed by CI systems).
```

That sounded a bit odd to me, as it will scare people away that want to test stable -rc's using git;

and I think it doesn't match current practices.

I'll thus likely
change the text to something like this,
unless I'm missing something or someone has a better idea:
```
.. warning::
The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.

Quoted 10 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis

While working on the latter I noticed one more thing:

```
    .. warning::
       The -stable-rc tree is a snapshot in time of the stable-queue
tree and
       will change frequently, hence will be rebased often. It should
only be
       used for testing purposes (e.g. to be consumed by CI systems).
```

[...]

Quoted 8 lines

I'll thus likely
change the text to something like this,
unless I'm missing something or someone has a better idea:
```
.. warning::
The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.

Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to test easier.

These are ONLY for CI systems to use, nothing else should be touching them. So I think the current text is correct, what am I missing?

Quoted 21 lines · Greg KH

Quoted 10 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis

While working on the latter I noticed one more thing:

```
    .. warning::
       The -stable-rc tree is a snapshot in time of the stable-queue
tree and
       will change frequently, hence will be rebased often. It should
only be
       used for testing purposes (e.g. to be consumed by CI systems).
```

[...]

Quoted 8 lines

I'll thus likely
change the text to something like this,
unless I'm missing something or someone has a better idea:
```
.. warning::
The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.

Quoted 6 lines

Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to test easier.

These are ONLY for CI systems to use, nothing else should be touching them. So I think the current text is correct, what am I missing?

That I misunderstood things and forgot about the "rebased sometimes in intermediate places" aspect I once knew about. Sorry. I'll leave the text as it is then.

Nevertheless makes me wonder: is that strategy wise in times when some ordinary users and some distributions are building kernels straight from git repos instead of tarballs? I'm one of those, as I distribute stable-rc packages for Fedora here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/kernel-vanilla/coprs/

Quoted 1 line · Thorsten Leemhuis

On 12.07.23 17:16, Greg KH wrote:

[...]

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 4 lines

.. warning::
The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.

Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to test easier.

[...]

Quoted 5 lines

Nevertheless makes me wonder: is that strategy wise in times when some ordinary users and some distributions are building kernels straight from git repos instead of tarballs? I'm one of those, as I distribute stable-rc packages for Fedora here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/kernel-vanilla/coprs/

As we keep the patches in quilt, not git, it's the best we can do. The -rc releases are never a straight-line if we have to do multiple ones, we remove patches in the middle, add them at the end or beginning, and sometimes even change existing ones.

All of this is stuff that a linear history tool like git can't really model well, so we keep a quilt series of the patches in git for anyone that want to generate the tree themselves, and we provide the -rc git tree for those that don't want to generate it and can live with the constant rebasing.

Quoted 23 lines · Greg KH

Quoted 1 line · Thorsten Leemhuis

On 12.07.23 17:16, Greg KH wrote:

[...]

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 4 lines

.. warning::
The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.

Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to test easier.

[...]

Quoted 5 lines

Nevertheless makes me wonder: is that strategy wise in times when some ordinary users and some distributions are building kernels straight from git repos instead of tarballs? I'm one of those, as I distribute stable-rc packages for Fedora here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/kernel-vanilla/coprs/

As we keep the patches in quilt, not git, it's the best we can do. The -rc releases are never a straight-line if we have to do multiple ones, we remove patches in the middle, add them at the end or beginning, and sometimes even change existing ones.

Quoted 5 lines

All of this is stuff that a linear history tool like git can't really model well, so we keep a quilt series of the patches in git for anyone that want to generate the tree themselves, and we provide the -rc git tree for those that don't want to generate it and can live with the constant rebasing.

/me first didn't want to reply, as this is not really important, but then reconsidered; again, feel free to just ignore this

FWIW, I do not consider that rebasing to be problem at all; it are those rebases "sometimes in intermediate places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to test easier" make things this slightly annoying bit harder when you want to distribute stable-rc releases to users.

But as I said, I can fully understand why you do those as well. I just with there was a way to reliably get a -rc release from git as well. Simply tagging them when you do a -rc release would solve all that. Is that maybe something that could be easily added to your -rc release scripts?

/me looks at https://github.com/gregkh/gregkh-linux/tree/master/stable
but failed to find the -rc release script :-/

Quoted 39 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis

Quoted 23 lines · Greg KH

Quoted 1 line · Thorsten Leemhuis

On 12.07.23 17:16, Greg KH wrote:

[...]

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 4 lines

.. warning::
The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.

Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to test easier.

[...]

Quoted 5 lines

Nevertheless makes me wonder: is that strategy wise in times when some ordinary users and some distributions are building kernels straight from git repos instead of tarballs? I'm one of those, as I distribute stable-rc packages for Fedora here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/kernel-vanilla/coprs/

As we keep the patches in quilt, not git, it's the best we can do. The -rc releases are never a straight-line if we have to do multiple ones, we remove patches in the middle, add them at the end or beginning, and sometimes even change existing ones.

Quoted 5 lines

All of this is stuff that a linear history tool like git can't really model well, so we keep a quilt series of the patches in git for anyone that want to generate the tree themselves, and we provide the -rc git tree for those that don't want to generate it and can live with the constant rebasing.

/me first didn't want to reply, as this is not really important, but then reconsidered; again, feel free to just ignore this

FWIW, I do not consider that rebasing to be problem at all; it are those rebases "sometimes in intermediate places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to test easier" make things this slightly annoying bit harder when you want to distribute stable-rc releases to users.

Quoted 4 lines

But as I said, I can fully understand why you do those as well. I just with there was a way to reliably get a -rc release from git as well. Simply tagging them when you do a -rc release would solve all that. Is that maybe something that could be easily added to your -rc release scripts?

I can add a tag, but it would have to be a tag that can be rebased, and git doesn't like that very well :)

Quoted 2 lines

/me looks at https://github.com/gregkh/gregkh-linux/tree/master/stable
but failed to find the -rc release script :-/

Hah, no github, it's at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/scripts/quilt-mail

But I don't think tags will help much. I'll let anyone who actually runs a CI that uses this to speak up to see if it would before adding them.

Also, as proof this works, I just got a report of someone testing the queues and finding a problem at the moment, before we sent anything out for review. So this is working well today.

thanks,

greg k-h

Quoted 45 lines · Greg KH

Quoted 43 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis

Quoted 23 lines · Greg KH

Quoted 1 line · Thorsten Leemhuis

On 12.07.23 17:16, Greg KH wrote:

[...]

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 4 lines

.. warning::
The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.

Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to test easier.

[...]

Quoted 5 lines

Nevertheless makes me wonder: is that strategy wise in times when some ordinary users and some distributions are building kernels straight from git repos instead of tarballs? I'm one of those, as I distribute stable-rc packages for Fedora here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/kernel-vanilla/coprs/

As we keep the patches in quilt, not git, it's the best we can do. The -rc releases are never a straight-line if we have to do multiple ones, we remove patches in the middle, add them at the end or beginning, and sometimes even change existing ones.

Quoted 5 lines

All of this is stuff that a linear history tool like git can't really model well, so we keep a quilt series of the patches in git for anyone that want to generate the tree themselves, and we provide the -rc git tree for those that don't want to generate it and can live with the constant rebasing.

/me first didn't want to reply, as this is not really important, but then reconsidered; again, feel free to just ignore this

FWIW, I do not consider that rebasing to be problem at all; it are those rebases "sometimes in intermediate places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to test easier" make things this slightly annoying bit harder when you want to distribute stable-rc releases to users.

But as I said, I can fully understand why you do those as well. I just with there was a way to reliably get a -rc release from git as well. Simply tagging them when you do a -rc release would solve all that. Is that maybe something that could be easily added to your -rc release scripts?

Quoted 2 lines

I can add a tag, but it would have to be a tag that can be rebased, and git doesn't like that very well :)

I figure the desired tagging behaviour is that you do it when the email is sent out for a corresponding version & so the tag "should" not need to be rebased?

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 2 lines

/me looks at https://github.com/gregkh/gregkh-linux/tree/master/stable
but failed to find the -rc release script :-/

Hah, no github, it's at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/scripts/quilt-mail

Quoted 3 lines

But I don't think tags will help much. I'll let anyone who actually runs a CI that uses this to speak up to see if it would before adding them.

I'm not sure that it is particularly valuable to the usual flow of testing what is about to come down the tracks, at least in my simple case where I trigger it based on the -rc emails

or whenever something
else interesting happens, like a patch being dropped that breaks the build.

I suppose it may be useful if an issue presents itself but disappears when a backport is dropped from the queue & some developers are interested in figuring out why the backport went awry?

Other than that, I'm not sure what the value is in "I just with [sic] there was a way to reliably get a -rc release from git as well", in _my_ CI use case I don't care about the superseded stable -rc versions, just whatever is about to be released.

Others with more complex CI infrastructure, like Linaro etc, might feel differently :)