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]

Message-ID: <a97a37bf-86b5-cd8e-a8ce-00e38720cee4@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:30:30 +0200
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
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 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; 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.
```

Ciao, Thorsten