[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811082119500.1640@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 21:22:44 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>, acme@...hat.com,
frederic@...nel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] Documentation/process: Add tip tree handbook
On Thu, 8 Nov 2018, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 09:19:33AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> >
> > I know at least StGit mail does not grok that "#"notation. I've
> > stopped using it in favor of a "Fixes:" tag. I would think "Fixes:" is
> > preferred over "# <KVER>" if only because it can be used to track
> > fixes to commits that have been backported to stable. Is there any
> > reason for "# <KVER>" to continue in a world where we have "Fixes:"?
>
> The main annoyance I have with Fixes is because it can be a pain to
> figure out what the "# <KVER>" would be. Something like:
>
> % tag --contains DEADBEEF | grep ^v | head
>
> doesn't work because kernel version numbers don't sort obviously. So
> v4.10 comes before v4.3 using a normal sort, and even sort -n doesn't
> do the right.
>
> I suppose it wouldn't be that hard to write a perl/python script that
> correctly sorts kernel version numbers, but when the "# <KVER>" is
> present, I find it convenient.
>
> (Also note that even with fast SSD's and/or everything in page cache,
> runnning "tag --contains <COMMITID>" will take a good 3-4 seconds, and
> if the git packs are not in the page cache, and/or you're unfortunate
> enough to have your git trees on an HDD.... it's not pretty.)
Fair enough. But as I said before we please let us have both the fixes tag
and a decicated backport-to one and make the latter mandatory.
It if's not there and the patch has a 'Cc: stable' tag it's easy enough to
reject it. The the submitter or the maintainer who decides that a patch
needs to be backported to stable has to wait the 4 seconds and add that
information.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists