linux-kernel - Re: Please create the email alias do-not-apply-to-stable@...nel.org -> /dev/null

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, 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