From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: Is there some way to suppress Cc email only to stable? Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:43:12 -0800 Message-ID: <20150209214312.GC4166@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20150209194224.GA27482@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20150209211021.GB4166@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Feb 09 22:43:22 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YKw6z-0006uK-LZ for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 22:43:22 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761248AbbBIVnR (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:43:17 -0500 Received: from e35.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.153]:55576 "EHLO e35.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760442AbbBIVnQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:43:16 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e35.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:43:16 -0700 Received: from d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.179) by e35.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.135) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:43:14 -0700 Received: from b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com (b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.130.18]) by d03dlp03.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1672219D803F for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:34:24 -0700 (MST) Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (d03av05.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.85]) by b03cxnp08026.gho.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id t19LhZJh42795038 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:43:35 -0700 Received: from d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id t19LhD1O003904 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:43:14 -0700 Received: from paulmck-ThinkPad-W500 (sig-9-65-236-19.ibm.com [9.65.236.19]) by d03av05.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id t19LhDet003885; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 14:43:13 -0700 Received: by paulmck-ThinkPad-W500 (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9AE2538BAA2; Mon, 9 Feb 2015 13:43:12 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 15020921-0013-0000-0000-0000089A0615 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 01:17:05PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Paul E. McKenney" writes: > > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 12:57:11PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> No, I do not think we have a way to blacklist certain recipient > >> addresses from getting passed to the MTA, and I do not object to > >> addition of such a mechanism if there is a valid need to do so. > >> > >> It feels a bit too convoluted to say "Cc: to this address" in the > >> log message and then "nonono, I do not want to send there", though. > >> Why do you want to have Cc: in the log message if you do not want to > >> send e-mail to that address in the first place? Allowing the > >> behaviour you are asking for would mean that those who see that the > >> commit appeared on a branch would not be able to assume that the > >> patch has already been sent to the stable review address, no? > > > > I could see where it might seem a bit strange. ;-) > > > > The reason behind this is that you are not supposed to actually send > > email to the stable lists until after the patch has been accepted into > > mainline. One way to make this work is of course to leave the stable > > Cc tags out of the commit log, and to manually send an email when the > > commit has been accepted. However, this is subject to human error, > > and more specifically in this case, -my- human error. > > > > Hence the desire to have a Cc that doesn't actually send any email, > > but that is visible in mainline for the benefit of the scripts that > > handle the stable workflow. > > So a configuration variable that you can set once and forget, e.g. > > [sendemail] > blacklistedRecipients = stable@vger.kernel.org > > would not cut it, as you would _later_ want to send the e-mail once > the commit hits the mainline. Am I reading you correctly? This would actually work for me. Once the patch is accepted into mainline, I am done with it. So I should -never- send email to stable@vger.kernel.org, unless I am doing so manually, for example because I forgot to add the stable tag to a given commit. But in that case, I would just use mutt to forward the patch to stable@vger.kernel.org, and git would not be involved. So as far as I can see, yes, it would be perfectly OK to unconditionally blacklist stable@vger.kernel.org within my git tree. That would be nice! > Or is it that nobody actually sends to stable@vger.kernel.org address > manually, but some automated process scans new commits that hit the > mainline and the string "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" is used as a cue > for that process to pick them up? I belive that something like this happens, but I don't know the details. I do know that it does not involve any of my local git trees. ;-) Thanx, Paul