MPTCP stable backports: is the workflow OK?

MPTCP stable backports: is the workflow OK?

[Matthieu Baerts]

Hi Greg,

Thank you again for your support when we send patches for stable
versions for MPTCP!

Recently, I sent many patches for the stable versions, and I just wanted
to check if what I did was OK for you?

I tried to reply to all the 'FAILED: patch' emails you sent, either with
patches, or with reasons explaining why it is fine not to backport them.
Are you OK with that?

Or do you prefer only receiving the patches, and not the emails with the
reasons not to backport some of them?

About the patches, do you prefer to receive one big series per version
or individual patches sent in reply to the different 'FAILED: patch'
emails like I did?

Do not hesitate if there are things we can improve!

Cheers,
Matt
-- 
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.

Re: MPTCP stable backports: is the workflow OK?

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 11:36:25AM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> Thank you again for your support when we send patches for stable
> versions for MPTCP!
> 
> Recently, I sent many patches for the stable versions, and I just wanted
> to check if what I did was OK for you?
> 
> I tried to reply to all the 'FAILED: patch' emails you sent, either with
> patches, or with reasons explaining why it is fine not to backport them.
> Are you OK with that?
> 
> Or do you prefer only receiving the patches, and not the emails with the
> reasons not to backport some of them?
> 
> About the patches, do you prefer to receive one big series per version
> or individual patches sent in reply to the different 'FAILED: patch'
> emails like I did?

One big series, per kernel tree, would be ideal as that way I don't have
to pick them out and guess as to the order.

Also, if you don't respond to the FAILED emails, that's fine with me, I
don't keep track, but maybe Sasha does as I know he does backports based
on them at times.  So I'll let him answer that.

But in the end, whatever is easier for you is good for us, thanks!

greg k-h

Re: MPTCP stable backports: is the workflow OK?

[Matthieu Baerts]

Hi Greg, Sasha,

Thank you for your reply!

On 06/09/2024 11:56, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 11:36:25AM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Thank you again for your support when we send patches for stable
>> versions for MPTCP!
>>
>> Recently, I sent many patches for the stable versions, and I just wanted
>> to check if what I did was OK for you?
>>
>> I tried to reply to all the 'FAILED: patch' emails you sent, either with
>> patches, or with reasons explaining why it is fine not to backport them.
>> Are you OK with that?
>>
>> Or do you prefer only receiving the patches, and not the emails with the
>> reasons not to backport some of them?
>>
>> About the patches, do you prefer to receive one big series per version
>> or individual patches sent in reply to the different 'FAILED: patch'
>> emails like I did?
> 
> One big series, per kernel tree, would be ideal as that way I don't have
> to pick them out and guess as to the order.

Sure, I will do that next time, it is even easier for me.

I sent the patches in the same order as they are in my working branch,
but I understand they could be received in a different order.

> Also, if you don't respond to the FAILED emails, that's fine with me, I
> don't keep track, but maybe Sasha does as I know he does backports based
> on them at times.  So I'll let him answer that.

Thanks! I will wait for Sasha's reply.

> But in the end, whatever is easier for you is good for us, thanks!

Thanks!

Matt
-- 
Sponsored by the NGI0 Core fund.

Re: MPTCP stable backports: is the workflow OK?

[Sasha Levin]

On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 12:10:22PM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>Hi Greg, Sasha,
>
>Thank you for your reply!
>
>On 06/09/2024 11:56, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 06, 2024 at 11:36:25AM +0200, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>>> Hi Greg,
>>>
>>> Thank you again for your support when we send patches for stable
>>> versions for MPTCP!
>>>
>>> Recently, I sent many patches for the stable versions, and I just wanted
>>> to check if what I did was OK for you?
>>>
>>> I tried to reply to all the 'FAILED: patch' emails you sent, either with
>>> patches, or with reasons explaining why it is fine not to backport them.
>>> Are you OK with that?
>>>
>>> Or do you prefer only receiving the patches, and not the emails with the
>>> reasons not to backport some of them?
>>>
>>> About the patches, do you prefer to receive one big series per version
>>> or individual patches sent in reply to the different 'FAILED: patch'
>>> emails like I did?
>>
>> One big series, per kernel tree, would be ideal as that way I don't have
>> to pick them out and guess as to the order.
>
>Sure, I will do that next time, it is even easier for me.
>
>I sent the patches in the same order as they are in my working branch,
>but I understand they could be received in a different order.
>
>> Also, if you don't respond to the FAILED emails, that's fine with me, I
>> don't keep track, but maybe Sasha does as I know he does backports based
>> on them at times.  So I'll let him answer that.
>
>Thanks! I will wait for Sasha's reply.

Doesn't matter on my end :)

-- 
Thanks,
Sasha