From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6891BC433EF for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 09:40:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231549AbiCLJly (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Mar 2022 04:41:54 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:42416 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229909AbiCLJly (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Mar 2022 04:41:54 -0500 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [139.178.84.217]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 475771E6EAA; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 01:40:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE7F560A25; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 09:40:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DB41CC340EB; Sat, 12 Mar 2022 09:40:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1647078048; bh=ZVSVuE716SVWZ8ing31mCUoBFVx1GTpTayrR9ETv+bk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=t4jUIJf0p0/kzAiStf+ONlCOqNGOfx7YdTg+vXbePV8tlR75Km0Vo8xA3Zgs15Ggi zvC47q+Cy3RCGAQHcZIVCR5BqaACuO0+cyWLGsxf1GBohM1yGFMaBgRvF1/9WTyQiF dyUbmNnKaUmdxpoOCN3lOf0j7BUEmhXi4ck6+tPw= Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2022 10:40:44 +0100 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: Bagas Sanjaya Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Sasha Levin , Jonathan Corbet , stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: update stable review cycle documentation Message-ID: References: <20220312080043.37581-1-bagasdotme@gmail.com> <20220312080043.37581-3-bagasdotme@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220312080043.37581-3-bagasdotme@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 03:00:41PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote: > In recent times, the review cycle for stable releases have been changed. > In particular, there is release candidate phase between ACKing patches > and new stable release. Also, in case of failed submissions (fail to > apply to stable tree), manual backport (Option 3) have to be submitted > instead. > > Update the release cycle documentation on stable-kernel-rules.rst to > reflect the above. > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman > Cc: Sasha Levin > Cc: Jonathan Corbet > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Bagas Sanjaya > --- > Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst | 18 +++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst > index d8ce4c0c775..c0c87d87f7d 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst > @@ -139,6 +139,9 @@ Following the submission: > days, according to the developer's schedules. > - If accepted, the patch will be added to the -stable queue, for review by > other developers and by the relevant subsystem maintainer. > + - Some submitted patches may fail to apply to -stable tree. When this is the > + case, the maintainer will reply to the sender requesting the backport. This is tricky, as yes, most of the time this happens, but there are exceptions. I would just leave this out for now as I don't think it helps anyone, right? > + If no backport is made, the submission will be ignored. That's kind of obvious :) > @@ -147,13 +150,22 @@ Review cycle > - When the -stable maintainers decide for a review cycle, the patches will be > sent to the review committee, and the maintainer of the affected area of > the patch (unless the submitter is the maintainer of the area) and CC: to > - the linux-kernel mailing list. > + the linux-kernel mailing list. Patches are prefixed with either ``[PATCH > + AUTOSEL]`` (for automatically selected patches) or ``[PATCH MANUALSEL]`` > + for manually backported patches. These two prefixes are different and not part of the review cycle for the normal releases. So that shouldn't go into this list. Perhaps a different section? > - The review committee has 48 hours in which to ACK or NAK the patch. > - If the patch is rejected by a member of the committee, or linux-kernel > members object to the patch, bringing up issues that the maintainers and > members did not realize, the patch will be dropped from the queue. > - - At the end of the review cycle, the ACKed patches will be added to the > - latest -stable release, and a new -stable release will happen. > + - The ACKed patches will be posted again as part of release candidate (-rc) Is this the first place we call it "-rc"? > + to be tested by developers and users willing to test (testers). When No need for "(testers)". > + testing all went OK, they can give Tested-by: tag for the -rc. Usually "testing all went OK" is a bit ackward. How about this wording instead: Responses to the -rc releases can be done on the mailing list by sending a "Tested-by:" email with any other testing information desired. The "Tested-by:" tags will be collected and added to the release commit. Thanks for taking this on, it's been a long time since we looked at this document. thanks, greg k-h