On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:16:26AM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > > at the scripts used by stable developers - and maybe at the ML server - to > > catch different variations won't hurt, as it sounds likely that people will > > end messing up with a big name like "do-not-apply-to-stable", typing > > instead things like: > > > > do_not_apply_to_stable > > dont-apply-to-stable > > > > and other variants. > > I want this very explicit that someone does not want this applied, and > that it has a reason to do so. And if getting the email right to do so > is the issue with that, that's fine. This is a very rare case that > almost no one should normally hit.
For using a comparable approach in haproxy on a daily basis, I do see the value in this. We just mark a lot of fixes "no backport needed" or "no backport needed unless blablabla" for everything that is only relevant to the dev tree, and that's a huge time saver for those working on the backports later. Maybe "not-for-stable" would be both shorter and easier to remember BTW ? Regards, Willy
