Re: Do we need a "DoNotBackPort" tag?

From: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
	"stable@vger.kernel.org" <stable@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: Do we need a "DoNotBackPort" tag?
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 07:30:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <572a9e73-570d-4345-99c3-41d94e3e8666@leemhuis.info> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240405025439.GC13376@mit.edu>

On 05.04.24 04:54, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 05:56:58PM +0200, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
>>
>> I know, as I wrote that (as you likely remember). ;-) But it seems it's
>> not well known; and maybe making it explicit that this can be used to
>> convey a "DoNotBackport" message is supported as well.
>>
>> Guess I'll prepare a patch to do that then and we'll see how it goes
>> from there.
> 
> Maybe something like "ManualBackportOnly"instead?   The basic idea is
> that it's not that the commit should *never* be backported, but only
> with human intervention where someone has specifically requested the
> backport, perhaps with qualification test.

I liked the idea at first, as it was more from the positive side of
things. But a CC stable with a "# ManualBackportOnly" might sound like
"I want this backported and handle that" to some developers and not what
they want to express.

After thinking about it for some time I went with "# no semi-automatic
backport" for now. For details see:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/c0a08b160b286e8c98549eedb37404c6e784cf8a.1712812895.git.linux@leemhuis.info/

Ciao, Thorsten