Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] docs: stable-kernel-rules: add delayed backporting option and a few tweaks

Thorsten Leemhuis
2023-07-12T17:02:46Z

On 12.07.23 17:16, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:30:30AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> While working on the latter I noticed one more thing:
>>
>> ```
>> .. warning::
>> The -stable-rc tree is a snapshot in time of the stable-queue
>> tree and
>> will change frequently, hence will be rebased often. It should
>> only be
>> used for testing purposes (e.g. to be consumed by CI systems).
>> ```
> [...]
>> I'll thus likely
>> change the text to something like this,
>> unless I'm missing something or someone has a better idea:
>> ```
>> .. warning::
>> The branches in the -stable-rc tree are rebased each time a new -rc
>> is released, as they are created by taking the latest release and
>> applying the patches from the stable-queue on top.
>
> Yes, that is true, but they are also rebased sometimes in intermediate
> places, before a -rc is released, just to give CI systems a chance to
> test easier.
>
> These are ONLY for CI systems to use, nothing else should be touching
> them. So I think the current text is correct, what am I missing?

That I misunderstood things and forgot about the "rebased sometimes in
intermediate places" aspect I once knew about. Sorry. I'll leave the
text as it is then.

Nevertheless makes me wonder: is that strategy wise in times when some
ordinary users and some distributions are building kernels straight from
git repos instead of tarballs? I'm one of those, as I distribute
stable-rc packages for Fedora here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/kernel-vanilla/coprs/

And the "rebased sometimes in intermediate places" aspect complicated
things for me (my scripts handle that and apparently I forgot about that
since I wrote them; uhhps :-/ ).

But whatever, not that important, feel free to ignore this remark. And I
can see why you are doing it the way you do, too.

Thx for you helpful feedback!

Ciao, Thorsten