On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 10:38 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 06:36:26PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:

quoted

FWIW, I brought this up already at KS 2016, see Jon's coverage here:

      https://lwn.net/Articles/705220/

My primary motivation to bring that up back then was to try to reduce the
number of patches that are taken into -stable while there is no good
justification for that (by requiring each and every of those having Fixes:
present as a requirement), but it didn't really lead anywhere.

Ah, I didn't get that you were trying to suggest that things only go
into stable if it has both Fixes: *and* Cc: Stable.

If that's the problem you were trying to solve, perhaps we could ask
Stephen Rothwell if he would be willing to run a script that sends
nag-o-grams to Maintainers who incluce patches in linux-next that have
Cc: stable but neither Fixes nor a "# 4.x" appended to the end of the
Cc: stable line?

Patches adding new PCI/USB/ACPI IDs or DMI quirks are usually accepted
into stable but normally lack "Fixes" tag.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry