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 09:09:26 +0100
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
Cc: helpdesk@...nel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.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

Em Wed, 17 Apr 2024 09:48:18 +0200
Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info> escreveu:

> Hi kernel.org helpdesk!
> 
> Could you please create the email alias
> do-not-apply-to-stable@...nel.org which redirects all mail to /dev/null,
> just like stable@...nel.org does?
> 
> That's an idea GregKH brought up a few days ago here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/2024041123-earthling-primarily-4656@gregkh/
> 
> To quote:
> 
> > How about:
> > 	cc: <do-not-apply-to-stable@...nel.org> # Reason goes here, and must be present
> > 
> > and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like
> > <stable@...nel.org> is?  
> 
> There was some discussion about using something shorter, but in the end
> there was no strong opposition and the thread ended a a few days ago.

Heh, a shorter name would make it a lot easier to remember, specially
since not wanting a patch to go to stable is an exception... I bet
I'll never remember the right syntax, needing to look at the docs
every time it would be used.

IMO, something like:
	no-stable
or
	nostable

would do the trick and would be a lot easier to remember.

Btw, IMO, it won't hurt accepting more than one variant that
could be allowed, e. g. using a regular expression like:

	(do)?[-_]?(nt|not?).*stable

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.

Just my 2 cents.

Regards,
Mauro