From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60473) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwCQE-0003Mh-Mx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:14:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwCQC-0000Vw-1g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:14:02 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:46579) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwCQB-0000Vj-P4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:13:59 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098393.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u9HI8aFj141290 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:13:58 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com (e31.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.149]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 264ym9cf1v-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 14:13:58 -0400 Received: from localhost by e31.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:13:57 -0600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Michael Roth In-Reply-To: References: <1476335734-29831-1-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> <20161013222835.GP18039@umbus.fritz.box> <20161014102759.566a1c5e@bahia> <20161017165126.7445.53992@loki> Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 13:13:48 -0500 Message-Id: <20161017181348.29726.67454@loki> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-stable] [Qemu-ppc] [PULL 0/4] ppc patches for qemu-2.7 stable branch List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Thomas Huth , Greg Kurz , David Gibson , "qemu-ppc@nongnu.org" , qemu-stable , QEMU Developers Quoting Peter Maydell (2016-10-17 12:33:18) > On 17 October 2016 at 17:51, Michael Roth wro= te: > > Maybe just a tag like [PULL for-stable], or [PULL for-2.7]? > > > > The latter seems to mirror how we handle things for patches coming for > > master during freeze. Others who've submitted patches they've > > backported themselves for stable seem to naturally lean toward that > > approach as well. > > > > That said, this might get confusing immediately after a release, where > > there are a lot of patches floating around with such tags, cc:'d for > > stable, that aren't actually meant to be directly pulled into stable. > > So I think I would lean toward "for-stable", or, even better, > > "for-2.7.1", etc. > > > > I don't do automated pulls so it's not a huge deal either way for me, > > but "for-x" in general should hopefully be enough for Peter to filter > > them out for master based on what whether "x" references the next > > major release or not. > = > I don't really want to have to update my email filters every > time we do a release, though, and so "for-X.Y" doesn't work because > when we are in the runup to release pull requests targeting > master tend to be marked that way. What about just for-stable, for-stable-2.7, for-ppc-2.8, etc.? Basically just adopt the for-* prefix for these sorts of pulls, but reserve the for-x.y prefix for master, so that anything that doesn't match for-\d\.\d can get filtered out based on that single rule? > = > Maybe just having not-for-master pull requests say "not for master" > in the cover letter somewhere ? I tend to treat PULLs cc'd for stable as just having individual patches marked for stable, so it's a bit easier to miss if it's not something obvious like a subject line tag. = It also kind of leaves it as an exercise for the reader what branch other than master is actually the intended target for stuff like sub-maintainer pulls (where there might actually be a bit more automation). We could do both though: use some ad-hoc way to tag for a particular sub-maintainer tree/stable branch, as well as an explicit "not for master" in the cover letter ensure it doesn't go into master. It's a bit more redundant, but flexible in that people can use whatever tagging format they want for a particular tree. > = > thanks > -- PMM >=20