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

Greg KH
2023-07-12T15:17:06Z

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 11:30:30AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 10.07.23 21:51, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 07:10:10PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >> This is a RFC and a bit rough for now. I only set down to create the
> >> first of the three patches. But while doing so I noticed a few things
> >> that seemed odd for me with my background on writing and editing texts.
> >> So I just quickly performed a few additional changes to fix those to see
> >> if the stable team would appreciate them, as this document is clearly
> >> their domain.
> >>
> >> If those changes or even the initial patch are not welcomed, I'll simply
> >> drop them. I'd totally understand this, as texts like these are delicate
> >> and it's easy to accidentlly change the intent or the meaning while
> >> adjusting things in good faith.
> >>
> >> At the same time I might be willing to do a few more changes, if people
> >> like the direction this takes and want a bit more fine tuning.
> >
> > I do like it, many thanks for taking the time to do this work, it's much
> > appreciated.
> >
> > If you resend the first 2 as a non-RFC patch,
>
> BTW: thx again for your uplifting feedback! And in case anyone missed
> it, I send those two patches out yesterday here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/cover.1689056247.git.linux@leemhuis.info/
>
> > the last one needs some more work as mentioned.
>
> I have that one in a separate branch now and spitted into four patches;
> the first three basically move text around, which results in a much
> cleaner diff for the last patch that contains actual content changes.
> 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).
> ```
>
> That sounded a bit odd to me, as it will scare people away that want to
> test stable -rc's using git;

They are only there for people who _DO_ want to test stable -rc's using
git.

> and I think it doesn't match current practices.

No, it's pretty correct, what does not match? It gets rebased all the
time.

> 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?

thanks,

greg k-h