On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 09:43:41AM -0800, Josh Hunt wrote: >I just started noticing the AUTOSEL tags yesterday and I think that's >a great idea to tag patches, but was there any thought to also putting >something in the commit message this way they're easily identifiable >in the git logs? I think it would be useful if there was some metadata >in the commit message which identified that it was selected through >some automated system. That way if I find a regression and it >identifies one of these commits I can know that maybe it was chosen >incorrectly, and also would allow me to alert the owner of the >selection script to better help refine its selection process. >Otherwise I'd have to track back through the mailing lists to see how >it landed in the stable release.
It's possible, but I didn't want to add a bunch of clutter to the commit message. Right now it's somewhat easy to track it back to automatic selection because: 1. I'm signed off on all of them, so I could chime in in the case concerns/issues arise with a patch. 2. They all have a corresponding review request email with the AUTOSEL marker. Keep in mind that what the automatic tools are doing is only identifying whether a patch "looks like" a patch that should be in a stable tree. They do not verify that it's appropriate for any of the stable trees it ends up going to - that's still mostly manual and all fuck ups are PEBCAK. >Just a thought. Also, thank you for trying to improve the stable kernels! Thanks Josh! -- Thanks, Sasha
