docs: stable-kernel-rules: fine-tuning and 'no semi-automatic backport'
Subsystems (3)
cover docs: stable-kernel-rules: fine-tuning and 'no semi-automatic backport'
After a recent discussion regarding "do we need a 'nobackport' tag" I set out to create one change for stable-kernel-rules.rst. This is now the second patch in the series, which links to that discussion; the other stuff is fine-tuning that happened along the way.
Ciao, Thorsten
Thorsten Leemhuis (4):
docs: stable-kernel-rules: reduce redundancy
docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport"
docs: stable-kernel-rules: call mainline by its name and change
example
docs: stable-kernel-rules: remove code-labels tags
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 50 +++++++------------ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
base-commit: 3f86ed6ec0b390c033eae7f9c487a3fea268e027
Signature · 1 line
2.44.0
PATCH 1/4 docs: stable-kernel-rules: reduce redundancy
Explain the general concept once in the intro to keep things somewhat shorter in the individual points.
--- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 13 +++++-------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +5 -8
@@ -79,10 +79,9 @@ stable tree without anything else needing to be done by the author or subsystem maintainer. To sent additional instructions to the stable team, use a shell-style inline -comment: +comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: - * To specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking use the - following format in the sign-off area: + * Specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking: .. code-block:: none
@@ -101,8 +100,7 @@ comment: 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: + * Point out kernel version prerequisites: .. code-block:: none
@@ -119,14 +117,13 @@ comment: Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the appropriate versions from Fixes: tags. - * To delay pick up of patches, use the following format: + * Delay pick up of patches: .. 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: + * Point out known problems: .. code-block:: none
Signature · 1 line
2.44.0
Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: reduce redundancy
Quoted 4 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Explain the general concept once in the intro to keep things somewhat shorter in the individual points.
Signed-off-by Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>
PATCH 2/4 docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport"
In reply to Thorsten LeemhuisSome developers deliberately steer clear of 'Fixes:' tags to prevent changes from being backported semi-automatically by the stable team. That somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of the Fixes: tag, hence point out there is an alternative to reach the same effect.
--- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +6 -0
@@ -117,6 +117,12 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the appropriate versions from Fixes: tags. + * Prevent semi-automatic backporting of changes carrying a 'Fixes:' tag: + + .. code-block:: none + + Cc: <[email protected]> # no semi-automatic backport + * Delay pick up of patches: .. code-block:: none
Signature · 1 line
2.44.0
Greg Kroah-Hartman
maintainerRe: [PATCH v1 2/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport"
Quoted 16 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Some developers deliberately steer clear of 'Fixes:' tags to prevent changes from being backported semi-automatically by the stable team. That somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of the Fixes: tag, hence point out there is an alternative to reach the same effect.
Signed-off-by Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>--- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +0
-0
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: · line 124
Quoted 8 lines
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +5
-0@@ -117,6 +117,12 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the appropriate versions from Fixes: tags. + * Prevent semi-automatic backporting of changes carrying a 'Fixes:' tag: + + .. code-block:: none + + Cc: <[email protected]> # no semi-automatic backport
I do not understand, why are you saying "cc: stable" here if you do NOT want it backported?
And what do you mean by "semi-automatic"?
confused,
greg k-h
Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport"
Quoted 20 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 19 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Some developers deliberately steer clear of 'Fixes:' tags to prevent changes from being backported semi-automatically by the stable team. That somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of the Fixes: tag, hence point out there is an alternative to reach the same effect.
Signed-off-by Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>--- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +0
-0@@ -117,6 +117,12 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the appropriate versions from Fixes: tags.
Quoted 8 lines
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: · line 124
Quoted 5 lines
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +5
-0+ * Prevent semi-automatic backporting of changes carrying a 'Fixes:' tag: + + .. code-block:: none + + Cc: <[email protected]> # no semi-automatic backportI do not understand, why are you saying "cc: stable" here if you do NOT want it backported?
Because the only alternative the developers have to make the stable team not pick a single patch[1] is to deliberately omit a Fixes: tag even if the patch normally should have one. Like it was done here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
And that somehow felt wrong to me, as discussed earlier in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
[1] e.g. if they don't have or want their whole subsystem marked as 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/ignore_list
Quoted 1 line
And what do you mean by "semi-automatic"?
E.g. 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'. That was the best term I came up with.
Ciao, Thorsten
Greg Kroah-Hartman
maintainerRe: [PATCH v1 2/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport"
Quoted 30 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 20 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 19 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Some developers deliberately steer clear of 'Fixes:' tags to prevent changes from being backported semi-automatically by the stable team. That somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of the Fixes: tag, hence point out there is an alternative to reach the same effect.
Signed-off-by Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>--- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +0
-0@@ -117,6 +117,12 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the appropriate versions from Fixes: tags.Quoted 8 lines
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: · line 124
Quoted 5 lines
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +5
-0+ * Prevent semi-automatic backporting of changes carrying a 'Fixes:' tag: + + .. code-block:: none + + Cc: <[email protected]> # no semi-automatic backportI do not understand, why are you saying "cc: stable" here if you do NOT want it backported?
Quoted 4 lines
Because the only alternative the developers have to make the stable team not pick a single patch[1] is to deliberately omit a Fixes: tag even if the patch normally should have one. Like it was done here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
That feels odd, but ok I now see the need for this for some minor set of changes (i.e. this has rarely come up in the past 15+ years)
Quoted 11 lines
And that somehow felt wrong to me, as discussed earlier in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/[1] e.g. if they don't have or want their whole subsystem marked as 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/ignore_listQuoted 1 line
And what do you mean by "semi-automatic"?
E.g. 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'. That was the best term I came up with.
Thinking about it more, I think we need to be much more explicit, and provide the reason why.
How about:
cc: <[email protected]> # Reason goes here, and must be present
and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like <[email protected]> is?
thanks,
greg k-h
Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport"
Quoted 21 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 6 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 5 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 4 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Some developers deliberately steer clear of 'Fixes:' tags to prevent changes from being backported semi-automatically by the stable team. That somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of the Fixes: tag, hence point out there is an alternative to reach the same effect.
[...]
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I do not understand, why are you saying "cc: stable" here if you do NOT want it backported?
Because the only alternative the developers have to make the stable team not pick a single patch[1] is to deliberately omit a Fixes: tag even if the patch normally should have one. Like it was done here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/That feels odd, but ok I now see the need for this for some minor set of changes (i.e. this has rarely come up in the past 15+ years)
[...]
Quoted 2 lines
E.g. 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'. That was the best term I came up with.
Quoted 8 lines
Thinking about it more, I think we need to be much more explicit, and provide the reason why.
How about:
cc: <[email protected]> # Reason goes here, and must be presentand we can make that address be routed to
/dev/nulljust like <[email protected]> is?
Totally fine with me, but that feels somewhat long and hard to type. How about just '[email protected]' (or '[email protected]')?
Ciao, Thorsten
Greg Kroah-Hartman
maintainerRe: [PATCH v1 2/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport"
Quoted 25 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 24 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 6 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 5 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 4 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Some developers deliberately steer clear of 'Fixes:' tags to prevent changes from being backported semi-automatically by the stable team. That somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of the Fixes: tag, hence point out there is an alternative to reach the same effect.
[...]
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I do not understand, why are you saying "cc: stable" here if you do NOT want it backported?
Because the only alternative the developers have to make the stable team not pick a single patch[1] is to deliberately omit a Fixes: tag even if the patch normally should have one. Like it was done here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/That feels odd, but ok I now see the need for this for some minor set of changes (i.e. this has rarely come up in the past 15+ years)
[...]
Quoted 2 lines
E.g. 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'. That was the best term I came up with.
Thinking about it more, I think we need to be much more explicit, and provide the reason why.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
How about:
cc: <[email protected]> # Reason goes here, and must be presentand we can make that address be routed to
/dev/nulljust like <[email protected]> is?Totally fine with me, but that feels somewhat long and hard to type.
I want it long and hard to type and very very explicit that this is what the developer/maintainer wants to have happen (again, because this is such a rare occurrence.)
Quoted 2 lines
How
about just '[email protected]' (or '[email protected]')?
More words are better :)
thanks,
greg k-h
Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport"
Quoted 34 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 25 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 24 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 6 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 5 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 4 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Some developers deliberately steer clear of 'Fixes:' tags to prevent changes from being backported semi-automatically by the stable team. That somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of the Fixes: tag, hence point out there is an alternative to reach the same effect.
[...]
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I do not understand, why are you saying "cc: stable" here if you do NOT want it backported?
Because the only alternative the developers have to make the stable team not pick a single patch[1] is to deliberately omit a Fixes: tag even if the patch normally should have one. Like it was done here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/That feels odd, but ok I now see the need for this for some minor set of changes (i.e. this has rarely come up in the past 15+ years)
[...]
Quoted 2 lines
E.g. 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'. That was the best term I came up with.
Thinking about it more, I think we need to be much more explicit, and provide the reason why.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
How about:
cc: <[email protected]> # Reason goes here, and must be presentand we can make that address be routed to
/dev/nulljust like <[email protected]> is?Totally fine with me, but that feels somewhat long and hard to type.
Quoted 8 lines
I want it long and hard to type and very very explicit that this is what the developer/maintainer wants to have happen (again, because this is such a rare occurrence.)
Quoted 2 lines
How
about just '[email protected]' (or '[email protected]')?More words are better :)
And after that, someone discovers this turns out to be (a hard dependency for) a very critical fix that does need backporting?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
Signature · 5 lines
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected] In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
Greg Kroah-Hartman
maintainerRe: [PATCH v1 2/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport"
Quoted 40 lines · Geert Uytterhoeven
Quoted 38 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 25 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 24 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 6 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 5 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 4 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Some developers deliberately steer clear of 'Fixes:' tags to prevent changes from being backported semi-automatically by the stable team. That somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of the Fixes: tag, hence point out there is an alternative to reach the same effect.
[...]
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I do not understand, why are you saying "cc: stable" here if you do NOT want it backported?
Because the only alternative the developers have to make the stable team not pick a single patch[1] is to deliberately omit a Fixes: tag even if the patch normally should have one. Like it was done here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/That feels odd, but ok I now see the need for this for some minor set of changes (i.e. this has rarely come up in the past 15+ years)
[...]
Quoted 2 lines
E.g. 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'. That was the best term I came up with.
Thinking about it more, I think we need to be much more explicit, and provide the reason why.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
How about:
cc: <[email protected]> # Reason goes here, and must be presentand we can make that address be routed to
/dev/nulljust like <[email protected]> is?Totally fine with me, but that feels somewhat long and hard to type.
I want it long and hard to type and very very explicit that this is what the developer/maintainer wants to have happen (again, because this is such a rare occurrence.)
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
How
about just '[email protected]' (or '[email protected]')?More words are better :)
And after that, someone discovers this turns out to be (a hard dependency for) a very critical fix that does need backporting?
Then we backport it and let the person know like always.
thanks,
greg k-h
Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport"
In reply to Geert UytterhoevenQuoted 40 lines · Geert Uytterhoeven
Quoted 38 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 25 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 24 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 6 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 5 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 4 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Some developers deliberately steer clear of 'Fixes:' tags to prevent changes from being backported semi-automatically by the stable team. That somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of the Fixes: tag, hence point out there is an alternative to reach the same effect.
[...]
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I do not understand, why are you saying "cc: stable" here if you do NOT want it backported?
Because the only alternative the developers have to make the stable team not pick a single patch[1] is to deliberately omit a Fixes: tag even if the patch normally should have one. Like it was done here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/That feels odd, but ok I now see the need for this for some minor set of changes (i.e. this has rarely come up in the past 15+ years)
[...]
Quoted 2 lines
E.g. 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'. That was the best term I came up with.
Thinking about it more, I think we need to be much more explicit, and provide the reason why.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
How about:
cc: <[email protected]> # Reason goes here, and must be presentand we can make that address be routed to
/dev/nulljust like <[email protected]> is?Totally fine with me, but that feels somewhat long and hard to type.
I want it long and hard to type and very very explicit that this is what the developer/maintainer wants to have happen (again, because this is such a rare occurrence.)
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
How
about just '[email protected]' (or '[email protected]')?More words are better :)
And after that, someone discovers this turns out to be (a hard dependency for) a very critical fix that does need backporting?
Ask why the tag was set I guess. But yeah, that was among the minor reasons why I had come up with "no semiautomatic stable backport" thing, as it made the intention more clear. Maybe
could help and is even longer. But I might be getting into bikeshedding territory here. :-D
Ciao, Thorsten
Cioao, Thorsten
Greg Kroah-Hartman
maintainerRe: [PATCH v1 2/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport"
Quoted 49 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 40 lines · Geert Uytterhoeven
Quoted 38 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 25 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 24 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 6 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 5 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 4 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Some developers deliberately steer clear of 'Fixes:' tags to prevent changes from being backported semi-automatically by the stable team. That somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of the Fixes: tag, hence point out there is an alternative to reach the same effect.
[...]
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I do not understand, why are you saying "cc: stable" here if you do NOT want it backported?
Because the only alternative the developers have to make the stable team not pick a single patch[1] is to deliberately omit a Fixes: tag even if the patch normally should have one. Like it was done here:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/That feels odd, but ok I now see the need for this for some minor set of changes (i.e. this has rarely come up in the past 15+ years)
[...]
Quoted 2 lines
E.g. 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'. That was the best term I came up with.
Thinking about it more, I think we need to be much more explicit, and provide the reason why.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
How about:
cc: <[email protected]> # Reason goes here, and must be presentand we can make that address be routed to
/dev/nulljust like <[email protected]> is?Totally fine with me, but that feels somewhat long and hard to type.
I want it long and hard to type and very very explicit that this is what the developer/maintainer wants to have happen (again, because this is such a rare occurrence.)
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
How
about just '[email protected]' (or '[email protected]')?More words are better :)
And after that, someone discovers this turns out to be (a hard dependency for) a very critical fix that does need backporting?
Quoted 8 lines
Ask why the tag was set I guess. But yeah, that was among the minor reasons why I had come up with "no semiautomatic stable backport" thing, as it made the intention more clear. Maybe
could help and is even longer. But I might be getting into bikeshedding territory here. :-D
That one would not work as I would then manually backport the commit :)
Actually, one can say that all of the commits are manually backported as I review them all that are cc: stable when I apply them. So while bikeshedding is fun, this would mean the opposite of what you intend.
thanks,
greg k-h
PATCH 3/4 docs: stable-kernel-rules: call mainline by its name and change example
In reply to Thorsten LeemhuisFine-tuning:
* s/Linus' tree/Linux mainline/, as mainline is the term used elsewhere in the document.
* Provide a better example for the 'delayed backporting' case.
--- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +2 -2
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ 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 or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linux mainline (upstream). - It must be obviously correct and tested. - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context. - It must follow the
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: .. code-block:: none - Cc: <[email protected]> # after 4 weeks in mainline + Cc: <[email protected]> # after 6 weeks in a stable mainline release * Point out known problems:
Signature · 1 line
2.44.0
Greg Kroah-Hartman
maintainerRe: [PATCH v1 3/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: call mainline by its name and change example
Quoted 26 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Fine-tuning:
* s/Linus' tree/Linux mainline/, as mainline is the term used elsewhere in the document.
* Provide a better example for the 'delayed backporting' case.
Signed-off-by Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>--- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +1
-1@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ 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 or an equivalent fix must already exist in Linux mainline (upstream). - It must be obviously correct and tested. - It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context. - It must follow the
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: · line 130
Quoted 5 lines
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +1
-1@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: .. code-block:: none - Cc: <[email protected]> # after 4 weeks in mainline + Cc: <[email protected]> # after 6 weeks in a stable mainline release
I do not know what "stable mainline release" means here, sorry. "after 4 weeks in mainline" means "after in Linus's tree for 4 weeks, but Linus's tree is not "stable mainline".
thanks,
greg k-h
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: call mainline by its name and change example
Quoted 8 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: · line 130
Quoted 3 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +1
-1- Cc: <[email protected]> # after 4 weeks in mainline + Cc: <[email protected]> # after 6 weeks in a stable mainline releaseI do not know what "stable mainline release" means here, sorry. "after 4 weeks in mainline" means "after in Linus's tree for 4 weeks, but Linus's tree is not "stable mainline".
I meant a proper mainline release like 6.7 or 6.8 to make it obvious that this does not mean a "pre-release".
I actually had used the term "proper mainline release" earlier in a draft, but a quick search on the net showed that this is not really used out there. "stable mainline release" is not popular either, but seemed to be a better match; I also considered "final mainline release", but that felt odd.
It feels like there must be some better term my mind just stumbles to come up with. Please help. :-D
Ciao, Thorsten
Greg Kroah-Hartman
maintainerRe: [PATCH v1 3/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: call mainline by its name and change example
Quoted 13 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 8 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: · line 130
Quoted 3 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +1
-1- Cc: <[email protected]> # after 4 weeks in mainline + Cc: <[email protected]> # after 6 weeks in a stable mainline releaseI do not know what "stable mainline release" means here, sorry. "after 4 weeks in mainline" means "after in Linus's tree for 4 weeks, but Linus's tree is not "stable mainline".
I meant a proper mainline release like 6.7 or 6.8 to make it obvious that this does not mean a "pre-release".
Quoted 8 lines
I actually had used the term "proper mainline release" earlier in a draft, but a quick search on the net showed that this is not really used out there. "stable mainline release" is not popular either, but seemed to be a better match; I also considered "final mainline release", but that felt odd.
It feels like there must be some better term my mind just stumbles to come up with. Please help. :-D
Well, what is the goal here? Just put it in words, I have seen stuff like:
Cc: <[email protected]> # wait until -rc3
Cc: <[email protected]> # wait until 6.1 is released
Cc: <[email protected]> # after -rc2
and so on.
Just pick a specific time/release might be better? "after X weeks" is assuming that we all know and remember how many weeks something happened...
thanks,
greg k-h
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: call mainline by its name and change example
Quoted 29 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 13 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 8 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: · line 130
Quoted 3 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +1
-1- Cc: <[email protected]> # after 4 weeks in mainline + Cc: <[email protected]> # after 6 weeks in a stable mainline releaseI do not know what "stable mainline release" means here, sorry. "after 4 weeks in mainline" means "after in Linus's tree for 4 weeks, but Linus's tree is not "stable mainline".
I meant a proper mainline release like 6.7 or 6.8 to make it obvious that this does not mean a "pre-release".
Quoted 8 lines
I actually had used the term "proper mainline release" earlier in a draft, but a quick search on the net showed that this is not really used out there. "stable mainline release" is not popular either, but seemed to be a better match; I also considered "final mainline release", but that felt odd.
It feels like there must be some better term my mind just stumbles to come up with. Please help. :-D
Well, what is the goal here? Just put it in words, I have seen stuff like:
Cc: <[email protected]> # wait until -rc3
Cc: <[email protected]> # wait until 6.1 is released
Cc: <[email protected]> # after -rc2
Quoted 5 lines
and so on.
Just pick a specific time/release might be better? "after X weeks" is assuming that we all know and remember how many weeks something happened...
My reasoning was: a developer that submits a patch has no full control over when the patch mainlined -- and plans sometimes change, too.
So a patch that was meant to go into 6.1-rc with a tag like "# wait until 4 weeks after 6.1 is released" might only be mainlined for 6.2-rc1 -- and then the tag does not express the developers intention.
But that might be a corner case that we could ignore. So maybe "# wait until 4 weeks after 6.1 is released" is the better example (from what I've heard something like that is what developer would like to have sometimes).
Ciao, Thorsten
Greg Kroah-Hartman
maintainerRe: [PATCH v1 3/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: call mainline by its name and change example
Quoted 36 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 29 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 13 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 8 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: · line 130
Quoted 3 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +1
-1- Cc: <[email protected]> # after 4 weeks in mainline + Cc: <[email protected]> # after 6 weeks in a stable mainline releaseI do not know what "stable mainline release" means here, sorry. "after 4 weeks in mainline" means "after in Linus's tree for 4 weeks, but Linus's tree is not "stable mainline".
I meant a proper mainline release like 6.7 or 6.8 to make it obvious that this does not mean a "pre-release".
Quoted 8 lines
I actually had used the term "proper mainline release" earlier in a draft, but a quick search on the net showed that this is not really used out there. "stable mainline release" is not popular either, but seemed to be a better match; I also considered "final mainline release", but that felt odd.
It feels like there must be some better term my mind just stumbles to come up with. Please help. :-D
Well, what is the goal here? Just put it in words, I have seen stuff like:
Cc: <[email protected]> # wait until -rc3
Cc: <[email protected]> # wait until 6.1 is released
Cc: <[email protected]> # after -rc2Quoted 5 lines
and so on.
Just pick a specific time/release might be better? "after X weeks" is assuming that we all know and remember how many weeks something happened...
Quoted 6 lines
My reasoning was: a developer that submits a patch has no full control over when the patch mainlined -- and plans sometimes change, too.
So a patch that was meant to go into 6.1-rc with a tag like "# wait until 4 weeks after 6.1 is released" might only be mainlined for 6.2-rc1 -- and then the tag does not express the developers intention.
I've normally seen patches end up in Linus's tree "too early" more often (i.e. cc: stable for stuff that has never been in a stable tree yet), but sure, I can see how changes can also take too long.
Quoted 4 lines
But that might be a corner case that we could ignore. So maybe "# wait until 4 weeks after 6.1 is released" is the better example (from what I've heard something like that is what developer would like to have sometimes).
Yes, referencing off of a fixed point like a release is best as that's much easier for humans to calculate.
Also because, the original "after 4 weeks", doesn't give me a reference point to judge what the starting time is easily. Yes, I have tools for that, but most people don't.
So how about changing it to use the "fixed point" reference please? The phrasing "after -rc3" is probably what most people almost always want anyway, given the huge churn that -rc1 is.
thanks,
greg k-h
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: call mainline by its name and change example
Quoted 4 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 3 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Quoted 2 lines · Greg Kroah-Hartman
Quoted 1 line · Thorsten Leemhuis
On 11.04.24 07:30, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: · line 130
Quoted 3 lines
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +1
-1- Cc: <[email protected]> # after 4 weeks in mainline + Cc: <[email protected]> # after 6 weeks in a stable mainline releaseSo how about changing it to use the "fixed point" reference please? The phrasing "after -rc3" is probably what most people almost always want anyway, given the huge churn that -rc1 is.
Okay, will go with that phrase in v2; people that want to express "four weeks after the change hit a proper mainline release" (I've seen a few people want something like that to ensure it gets field testing in a real release) can then add a version number to it.
Thx! Ciao, Thorsten
PATCH 4/4 docs: stable-kernel-rules: remove code-labels tags
In reply to Thorsten LeemhuisRemove the 'code-block:: none' labels and switch to the shorter '::' to reduce noise.
---
Intentionally the last patch in the series to make it easy to skip in case Jonathan or someone else points out there is a reason for these tags.
--- Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 37 +++++-------------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst +10 -27
@@ -68,22 +68,17 @@ Option 1 ******** To have a patch you submit for mainline inclusion later automatically picked up -for stable trees, add the tag - -.. code-block:: none +for stable trees, add this tag in the sign-off area:: 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. +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. To sent additional instructions to the stable team, use a shell-style inline comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: - * Specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking: - - .. code-block:: none + * Specify any additional patch prerequisites for cherry picking:: Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x: 1b9508f: sched: Rate-limit newidle
@@ -91,24 +86,18 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> - The tag sequence has the meaning of: - - .. code-block:: none + The tag sequence has the meaning of:: git cherry-pick a1f84a3 git cherry-pick 1b9508f git cherry-pick fd21073 git cherry-pick <this commit> - * Point out kernel version prerequisites: - - .. code-block:: none + * Point out kernel version prerequisites:: Cc: <[email protected]> # 3.3.x - The tag has the meaning of: - - .. code-block:: none + The tag has the meaning of:: git cherry-pick <this commit>
@@ -129,9 +118,7 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes: Cc: <[email protected]> # after 6 weeks in a stable mainline release - * Point out known problems: - - .. code-block:: none + * Point out known problems:: Cc: <[email protected]> # see patch description, needs adjustments for <= 6.3
@@ -153,15 +140,11 @@ Option 3 Send the patch, after verifying that it follows the above rules, to [email protected] and mention the kernel versions 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 +submission with a separate line above the commit text, like this:: commit <sha1> upstream. -or alternatively: - -.. code-block:: none +Or alternatively:: [ Upstream commit <sha1> ]
Signature · 1 line
2.44.0
Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: remove code-labels tags
Quoted 5 lines · Thorsten Leemhuis
Remove the 'code-block:: none' labels and switch to the shorter '::' to reduce noise.
CC Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Thorsten Leemhuis <[email protected]>
Assuming the output is the same as before (I didn't run it to verify):