On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 07:35:42PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 09:51:14PM +0000, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> I don't have an objection to moving this to it's own tag. It will make
>> my scripts somewhat simpler for sure.
>
>It's not a matter "moving this it's own tag", but creating a new tag
>--- because what is in the docs is a lie. It does not describe what
>we do today. And current practice is the reality, not what is in the
>docs.
I'm really confused here. What do you mean with "not describe what we do
today"?
The doc allows for three ways to tag a patch:
1. Empty tag: "Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org"
2. With a version, quoting from the doc:
Also, some patches may have kernel version prerequisites. This can be
specified in the following format in the sign-off area:
Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x
The tag has the meaning of:
git cherry-pick <this commit>
For each "-stable" tree starting with the specified version.
3. With a prereq commit, which is in the form of:
Cc: <sta...@vger.kernel.org> # 3.3.x: a1f84a3: sched: Check for idle
We expect this to be used rarely used, and indeed it's not used as much.
>As to whether we should create a new tag to support explicit
>dependencies, I'll leave that between you and Greg K-H and the rest of
>the stable maintainers. :-)
