Re: [PATCH v3] Introduce a description of the Backport and Fixes tags

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 18.04.2020 00:24, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> +Backport Tag
> +------------
> +
> +A backport tag is an optional tag in the commit message to request a
> +given commit to be backported to the stable trees:
> +
> +    Backport: 4.9+
> +
> +It marks a commit for being a candidate for backports to all stable
> +trees from 4.9 onward.

Using the wording "stable trees" may, to some, imply ones still
under maintenance. How about omitting "stable", or replacing it
by "released"?

> +The backport requester is expected to specify which currently supported
> +releases need the backport; but encouraged to specify a release as far
> +back as possible which applies. If the requester doesn't know the oldest
> +affected tree, they are encouraged to append a comment like the
> +following:
> +
> +    Backport: 4.9+ # maybe older
> +
> +Maintainers request the Backport tag to be added on commit. Contributors
> +are welcome to mark their patches with the Backport tag when they deem
> +appropriate. Maintainers will request for it to be removed when that is
> +not the case.
> +
> +Please note that the Backport tag is a **request** for backport, which
> +will still need to be evaluated by the stable tree maintainers.
> +Maintainers might ask the requester to help with the backporting work if
> +it is not trivial.
> +
> +When possible, please use the Fixes tag instead.

Maybe amend with "(or in addition)"? I'm thinking in particular
about a case where a buggy change was already backported, but
didn't show up yet in a release from the respective branch(es).

Previously I did suggest to add an indication that people requesting
backports should also be prepare to actually help with backporting.
I don't recall a verbal reply, and I also don't see any respective
update here. (I'm not fully trusting our mail system, i.e. it may
very well be that I did miss a reply.)

Jan