Re: [ 3.8.y.z extended stable ] Linux 3.8.13.11 stable review

[Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@canonical.com>]

Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 7:30 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 11:37 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Kamal Mostafa <kamal@canonical.com> wrote:
>>> > This is the start of the review cycle for the Linux 3.8.13.11 stable kernel.
>>>
>>> Would anybody be interested in adding some sort of "stable" tag to the
>>> subject lines of stable backport patches, e.g.,  instead of:
>>>
>>>   [PATCH 001/104] htb: fix sign extension bug
>>>
>>> something like:
>>>
>>>   [STABLE 3.8.13.11 001/104] htb: fix sign extension bug
>>>
>>> I don't mind having the stable patches on LKML, but it would be nice
>>> if it were easier to distinguish stable backports from new patches.  I
>>> know the patches are nicely threaded behind this message, but some
>>> readers don't really pay attention to that.
>>
>> I agree that some distinction is needed, but I'm not convinced about
>> that precise format.  I don't think it's worth including version
>> components after the stable base version e.g. 3.2.  And I think that
>> including the version is a big enough clue that this is for a stable
>> branch and not mainline.
>>
>> So I've changed my review script to put a subject prefix of 'PATCH 3.2'
>> before the patch number (and similarly in the cover letter).  But if
>> there's consensus that a more explicit tag is wanted then I'll follow
>> that.
>
> Selfishly, I would just like something gmail can filter on.  I've seen
> an "X-Extended-Stable: 3.8" header, which would be perfect, except
> that I can't figure out how to create a gmail filter for random
> headers.  So I was hoping for something stable-specific in the subject
> line, but that's just to compensate for gmail's limitations.
>
> Bjorn

I don't really mind changing the scripts we're currently using to make
life easier for filtering, although I would expect that the extra
'X-Extended-Stable' header would do the job (this was the reason we
added it in the first place).

Since the only header that can be parsed is the 'Subject:', it's just
a matter of agreeing on the format (personally, I don't have any
strong opinion on this).

Cheers,
-- 
Luis