From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D52B1E47A5; Fri, 13 Dec 2024 16:24:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734107088; cv=none; b=PI8kZHpopB+TvJG94i0+RhtCfOqxhn7ar6yifFshTrFs0NaxznNuBmGNgVKpcKCwv8e8lrYfywNnREmkkDPxFnxQY+dJCz9VyjtlkoZire1vLM1oUGzNZ4Gpy034FMxB8QkVm7tlRXfzUM3QC6XOTVMhGCyjTuar0qOzTd91IJc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1734107088; c=relaxed/simple; bh=vDy2n6+GLlsnyrG9vnR9n+Xn2UlVlbNJOWGw5dx1w0g=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=UR7391XAnvIznn/e42nTZz2ufn/uqv5umxpe7EaLiIPgye++xw0k74y9T2SYouQKWI5MoceLNRX5c6cyKbM1rTozTX5w0wtBv+USlt/qEPR+cnmGHRHSCT+g1jawYoOT6YzZHWE7vBrRbnZLvTkNlykkKBu5eh6ulgRfV8KbK2s= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=qXJyM87j; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="qXJyM87j" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 6DB1A403FA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1734107085; bh=p7OWvQr1zt2I+sA5TaKD6BpceFenBaKfbrqoO0W1ET8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=qXJyM87jimCuwYzlURfmTfeMI887bPWgZDoOcywr0IeEStGDwwDZOyXohAN0D7uFB 1IjsCNxgo+OTQB8QxNaJh8CcnHCI2qb3KU5z26oK1bwDwNu+M2DmzW4I9gqxfrrnZd NINFynb5b4ZPvfQ1XKPLt9aXEV9s0dl4QKuH/RVerKLbgluDmgWrC/3loA4wAaOQ5Y 9w2Icy1WECW851uKphtdlSlIv7Z1R4pH47yKZ16uYQzDKU9Loc6rTdbyNLv5TZvUVU 4XfsxdU0M2NB3J3l3lP7nA9nNWqIdkBiQn5yxioL3HqpLD5AEZ2lW606oBDI9MHG2k xm39MSnFTeR3g== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:5e00:625::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6DB1A403FA; Fri, 13 Dec 2024 16:24:45 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Thorsten Leemhuis , workflows@vger.kernel.org, regressions@lists.linux.dev, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org Cc: Linus Torvalds , Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/6] docs: 6.Followthrough.rst: tags to use in regressions fixes In-Reply-To: <5913a87f05a5fe53afb9aae151f60f83bda128e8.1733825632.git.linux@leemhuis.info> References: <5913a87f05a5fe53afb9aae151f60f83bda128e8.1733825632.git.linux@leemhuis.info> Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 09:24:44 -0700 Message-ID: <87a5czwnxv.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Thorsten Leemhuis writes: > Add a few notes on the appropriate tags to be used in changes that fix > regressions. > > This removes equivalent paragraphs from a section in > Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst, which will become mostly > obsolete through this and follow-up changes. > > Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis > --- > > Note: > > * Not sure if the "add a second Fixes: tag for the change that exposed > an earlier problem" is appropriate, but it results in the most > reliable solution without much overhead. > > * On a brief look it might seem like this changes the "participation in > stable is optional for mainline developers" approach. But that is not > the case, as the point is just kindly asking developers to take care > of stable inclusion. > --- > Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > Documentation/process/handling-regressions.rst | 7 ------- > 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst b/Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst > index 763a80d21240f0..2ba16a71aba9b4 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/6.Followthrough.rst > @@ -234,6 +234,22 @@ On procedure: > requests again should ideally come directly from maintainers or happen in > accordance with them. > > +On tags in the patch description of regressions fixes: "regression" (no "s") > + - Include the tags Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst mentions for > + regressions; this usually means a "Reported-by:" tag followed by "Link:" or > + "Closes:" tag pointing to the report as well as a "Fixes:" tag; if it's a > + regression a later change exposed, add a "Fixes:" tag for that one, too. > + > + - Did the culprit make it into a proper mainline release during the past > + twelve months? Or is it a recent mainline commit backported to stable or > + longterm releases in the past few weeks? Then you are kindly asked to ensure > + stable inclusion as described by Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst. > + Usually you want to realized thos by adding a "Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org" to Something went a bit astray in that sentence. "you want to do this" ? > + the patch description. Note, a "Fixes:" tag alone does not guarantee a > + backport, as the stable team does not pick up all such changes and might > + silently drop them in case trouble arises. In the past we have had subsystem maintainers who didn't want people to put CC: stable tags into their own patches; not sure if that's still the case? Thanks, jon