Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] docs: stable-kernel-rules: mention "no semi-automatic backport"

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 08:59:39AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 11.04.24 07:29, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 07:25:04AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> Some developers deliberately steer clear of 'Fixes:' tags to prevent
> >> changes from being backported semi-automatically by the stable team.
> >> That somewhat undermines the reason for the existence of the Fixes: tag,
> >> hence point out there is an alternative to reach the same effect.
> >>
> >> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/dfd87673-c581-4b4b-b37a-1cf5c817240d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >> Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 6 ++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> >> index 7bb16d42a51833..ebd57cb9277f7b 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> >> +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst
> >> @@ -117,6 +117,12 @@ comment to pass arbitrary or predefined notes:
> >>     Note, such tagging is unnecessary if the stable team can derive the
> >>     appropriate versions from Fixes: tags.
> >>  
> >> + * Prevent semi-automatic backporting of changes carrying a 'Fixes:' tag:
> >> +
> >> +   .. code-block:: none
> >> +
> >> +     Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # no semi-automatic backport
> > 
> > I do not understand, why are you saying "cc: stable" here if you do NOT
> > want it backported?
> 
> Because the only alternative the developers have to make the stable team
> not pick a single patch[1] is to deliberately omit a Fixes: tag even if
> the patch normally should have one. Like it was done here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1712226175.git.antony.antony@xxxxxxxxxxx/

That feels odd, but ok I now see the need for this for some minor set of
changes (i.e. this has rarely come up in the past 15+ years)

> And that somehow felt wrong to me, as discussed earlier in
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/dfd87673-c581-4b4b-b37a-1cf5c817240d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> [1] e.g. if they don't have or want their whole subsystem marked as
> 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git/tree/ignore_list
> 
> > And what do you mean by "semi-automatic"?
> 
> E.g. 'ignore for the AUTOSEL and the "Fixes tag only" tools'. That was
> the best term I came up with.

Thinking about it more, I think we need to be much more explicit, and
provide the reason why.

How about:
	cc: <do-not-apply-to-stable@xxxxxxxxxx> # Reason goes here, and must be present

and we can make that address be routed to /dev/null just like
<stable@xxxxxxxxxx> is?

thanks,

greg k-h