linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 17:16:49 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
Cc:     stable@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed
 backporting option and a few tweaks

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:30:30AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 10.07.23 21:51, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:10:10PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> 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.
> > 
> > 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/cover.1689056247.git.linux@leemhuis.info/
> 
> > 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;

They are only there for people who _DO_ want to test stable -rc's using
git.

> and I think it doesn't match current practices.

No, it's pretty correct, what does not match?  It gets rebased all the
time.

> 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?

thanks,

greg k-h