On Wed, 14 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 13.06.17 at 19:41, <sstabell...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, George Dunlap wrote: > >> On 13/06/17 08:28, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> > Furthermore - who would you mean to create these tags? In the > >> > end I think it should be the person responsible for the respective > >> > parts of the stable trees to decide if and how far such backports > >> > ought to occur, so neither the person submitting the patch nor > >> > the person committing the patch are in the position to give more > >> > than a hint here (again speaking against using such tags for > >> > automation). > >> > >> We could require that the "stable" tag be acked by any stable tree > >> maintainers that it affects. > > > > Yes, that is where CC: sta...@xenproject.org comes into play. The people > > at sta...@xenproject.org should ack or request a chance to the > > backporting info. The first step would be to create a mailing list for > > that. > > Isn't Linux'es stable@ a fake address? I'm not really fancying getting > yet another copy of patches through such a new alias or list, so I'd > expect this to be a fake address in our case too.
Neither I am, but shouldn't emails be deduped by the mail server? In any case, you are right, I realize that we don't actually need another mailing list, just another rule in my procmail, so I am fine with sta...@xenproject.org being a fake address, but let's keep in mind that git send-email will try to send emails to sta...@xenproject.org, so if we don't create it, the sender will get bounce backs? _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel