Re: AUTOSEL process

Eric Biggers
2023-03-01T07:06:06Z

On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 07:06:26AM +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 09:05:16PM -0500, Slade Watkins wrote:
> > On 2/28/23 06:28, Greg KH wrote:
> > >> But just so you know, as a maintainer, you have the option to request that
> > >> patches to your subsystem will not be selected by AUTOSEL and run your
> > >> own process to select, test and submit fixes to stable trees.
> > >
> > > Yes, and simply put, that's the answer for any subsystem or maintainer
> > > that does not want their patches picked using the AUTOSEL tool.
> > >
> > > The problem that the AUTOSEL tool is solving is real, we have whole
> > > major subsystems where no patches are ever marked as "for stable" and so
> > > real bugfixes are never backported properly.
> >
> > Yeah, I agree.
> >
> > And I'm throwing this out here [after having time to think about it due to an
> > internet outage], but, would Cc'ing the patch's relevant subsystems on AUTOSEL
> > emails help? This was sort of mentioned in this email[1] from Eric, and I
> > think it _could_ help? I don't know, just something that crossed my mind earlier.
>
> I don't know, maybe? Note that determining a patch's "subsystem" at
> many times is difficult in an automated fashion, have any idea how to do
> that reliably that doesn't just hit lkml all the time?

As I said, it seems Sasha already does this for AUTOSEL (but not other stable
emails). I assume he uses either get_maintainer.pl, or the lists the original
patch is sent to (retrievable from lore). This is *not* a hard problem.

> But again, how is that going to help much, the people who should be
> saying "no" are the ones on the signed-off-by and cc: lines in the patch
> itself.

So that if one person does not respond, other people can help.

You're basically arguing that mailing lists shouldn't exist at all...

- Eric