Attributing linux related patches on xen-devel

Attributing linux related patches on xen-devel

[Juergen Gross]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 404 bytes --]

On IRC the question came up whether it would be possible to have a
special marker for Linux patches on the xen-devel ML.

I suggested to use xen-devel+linux@lists.xenprojext.org for those
patches. With a patch for the kernel's MAINTAINERS file this would
be quite easy to achieve.

Any thoughts?


Juergen

P.S.: similar tagging could be performed for qemu and Mini-OS
       related mails

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3149 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]

Re: Attributing linux related patches on xen-devel

[Stefano Stabellini]

On Mon, 9 May 2022, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On IRC the question came up whether it would be possible to have a
> special marker for Linux patches on the xen-devel ML.
> 
> I suggested to use xen-devel+linux@lists.xenprojext.org for those
> patches. With a patch for the kernel's MAINTAINERS file this would
> be quite easy to achieve.
> 
> Any thoughts?

Fine by me, as long as xen-devel+linux@lists.xenprojext.org works :-)

The alternative would be to come up with a different subject tag (e.g.
"PATCH LINUX") but that doesn't work as it is not supported by today's
Linux MAINTAINERS file.

So I think xen-devel+linux is fine.

Re: Attributing linux related patches on xen-devel

[Boris Ostrovsky]

On 5/9/22 3:01 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 9 May 2022, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On IRC the question came up whether it would be possible to have a
>> special marker for Linux patches on the xen-devel ML.
>>
>> I suggested to use xen-devel+linux@lists.xenprojext.org for those
>> patches. With a patch for the kernel's MAINTAINERS file this would
>> be quite easy to achieve.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
> Fine by me, as long as xen-devel+linux@lists.xenprojext.org works :-)
>
> The alternative would be to come up with a different subject tag (e.g.
> "PATCH LINUX") but that doesn't work as it is not supported by today's
> Linux MAINTAINERS file.
>
> So I think xen-devel+linux is fine.



I'd prefer '-' instead of '+' but either way is fine.


-boris

Re: Attributing linux related patches on xen-devel

[Andrew Cooper]

On 09/05/2022 20:29, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 09/05/2022 20:01, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 May 2022, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On IRC the question came up whether it would be possible to have a
>>> special marker for Linux patches on the xen-devel ML.
>>>
>>> I suggested to use xen-devel+linux@lists.xenprojext.org for those
>>> patches. With a patch for the kernel's MAINTAINERS file this would
>>> be quite easy to achieve.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>> Fine by me, as long as xen-devel+linux@lists.xenprojext.org works :-)
> Well, that one doesn't...
>
> Lets try (take 2).

Nope.

The following message to <xen-devel+linux@lists.xenproject.org> was
undeliverable.
The reason for the problem:
5.1.0 - Unknown address error 550-'4.7.1 Unrouteable address'

We'll need to do some reconfiguration first.

~Andrew

Re: Attributing linux related patches on xen-devel

[Juergen Gross]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 945 bytes --]

On 09.05.22 21:35, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> 
> On 5/9/22 3:01 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 May 2022, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On IRC the question came up whether it would be possible to have a
>>> special marker for Linux patches on the xen-devel ML.
>>>
>>> I suggested to use xen-devel+linux@lists.xenprojext.org for those
>>> patches. With a patch for the kernel's MAINTAINERS file this would
>>> be quite easy to achieve.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts?
>> Fine by me, as long as xen-devel+linux@lists.xenprojext.org works :-)
>>
>> The alternative would be to come up with a different subject tag (e.g.
>> "PATCH LINUX") but that doesn't work as it is not supported by today's
>> Linux MAINTAINERS file.
>>
>> So I think xen-devel+linux is fine.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd prefer '-' instead of '+' but either way is fine.

My suggestion was based on RFC-5233:

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5233


Juergen

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3149 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]