Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] The amount of -stable emails

[Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 11:42:03AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 06, 2025 at 10:04:11AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 at 18:41, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Aug 05, 2025 at 12:28:28PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
>> > > > One thing I'd really like to see there would be to avoid sending each
>> > > > patch separately for every stable version, that just blows up the mail
>> > > > volume hugely especially for those of us with subsystems that carry a
>> > > > lot of quirks.  I'm sure the range of versions something is being pulled
>> > > > back to could be expressed in a single mail instead, it's always some
>> > > > range of versions being processed en masse rather than just a single
>> > > > version.  The per version cover letter is more useful for replying with
>> > > > test results but that doesn't need the whole series.
>
>> > > Yes, I agree that a digest of all the autoselects would be good.
>
>> Commits are not always backported to all stable trees.  Sometimes I
>> receive an email about a backport, and wonder "has that still not
>> been backported?", only to discover it was backported, but not to
>> a very old stable tree.
>
>TBH I think a summary would help there - currently you're looking at six
>threads for all the different stables and have to check every patch in
>each, if we were instead getting a summary that says that patch A has
>been backported to stables X-Y then it'd highlight more clearly if
>something wasn't pulled far enough back.

Something along the lines of
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250805130945.471732-1-sashal@kernel.org/ ?

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha