[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b83b1f5b-a989-40b1-8874-85f75f17b4dc@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:13:27 -0700
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>, helpdesk@...nel.org,
"workflows@...r.kernel.org" <workflows@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Please create the email alias do-not-apply-to-stable@...nel.org
-> /dev/null
On 4/17/24 01:48, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:16:26AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
>>> at the scripts used by stable developers - and maybe at the ML server - to
>>> catch different variations won't hurt, as it sounds likely that people will
>>> end messing up with a big name like "do-not-apply-to-stable", typing
>>> instead things like:
>>>
>>> do_not_apply_to_stable
>>> dont-apply-to-stable
>>>
>>> and other variants.
>>
>> I want this very explicit that someone does not want this applied, and
>> that it has a reason to do so. And if getting the email right to do so
>> is the issue with that, that's fine. This is a very rare case that
>> almost no one should normally hit.
>
> For using a comparable approach in haproxy on a daily basis, I do see
> the value in this. We just mark a lot of fixes "no backport needed" or
> "no backport needed unless blablabla" for everything that is only
> relevant to the dev tree, and that's a huge time saver for those working
> on the backports later.
>
> Maybe "not-for-stable" would be both shorter and easier to remember BTW ?
Yes, "not-for-stable" looks like a good name to me.
--
Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists