| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:30:14 +0200 From: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info> To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu> Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Sasha Levin <sashal@...nel.org>, "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev> Subject: Re: Do we need a "DoNotBackPort" tag? On 05.04.24 04:54, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 05:56:58PM +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote: >> >> I know, as I wrote that (as you likely remember). ;-) But it seems it's >> not well known; and maybe making it explicit that this can be used to >> convey a "DoNotBackport" message is supported as well. >> >> Guess I'll prepare a patch to do that then and we'll see how it goes >> from there. > > Maybe something like "ManualBackportOnly"instead? The basic idea is > that it's not that the commit should *never* be backported, but only > with human intervention where someone has specifically requested the > backport, perhaps with qualification test. I liked the idea at first, as it was more from the positive side of things. But a CC stable with a "# ManualBackportOnly" might sound like "I want this backported and handle that" to some developers and not what they want to express. After thinking about it for some time I went with "# no semi-automatic backport" for now. For details see: https://lore.kernel.org/all/c0a08b160b286e8c98549eedb37404c6e784cf8a.1712812895.git.linux@leemhuis.info/ Ciao, Thorsten
Powered by blists - more mailing lists