[PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: describe additional tags

[PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: describe additional tags

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

Described tags do not fully cover development needs. For example the LKP
robot insists on using Reported-by: tag, but that's not fully correct.
The robot reports an issue with the patch, not the issue that is being
fixed by the patch. Describe additional tags to be used while submitting
patches.

Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
---
 Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
index 66029999b587..3a24d90fa385 100644
--- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
+++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
@@ -544,6 +544,25 @@ future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
 Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
 acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
 
+Additional tags to be used while submitting patches
+---------------------------------------------------
+
+The tags described previously do not always cover the needs of the development
+process.
+
+For example, if the kernel test robot reports an issue in the patch, the robot
+insists that the next version of the patch gets the Reported-by: and Closes:
+tags.  While the Closes: tag can be considered correct in such a case, the
+Reported-by: tag is definitely not correct. The LKP robot hasn't reported the
+issue that is being fixed by the patch, but instead it has reported an issue
+with the patch. To be more precise you may use the Improved-thanks-to: tag for
+the next version of the patch.
+
+Another frequent case is when you want to express gratitude to the colleagues,
+who helped to improve the patch, but neither the Co-developed-by: nor
+Suggested-by: tags are appropriate. In such case you might prefer to use
+Discussed-with:, Listened-by:, or Discussed-over-a-beer-with: tags.
+
 Reviewer's statement of oversight
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 

---
base-commit: 13ee4a7161b6fd938aef6688ff43b163f6d83e37
change-id: 20240401-additional-trailers-2b764f3e4aee

Best regards,
-- 
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>

Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: describe additional tags

[Nikita Travkin]

On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 08:17:03AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> Described tags do not fully cover development needs. For example the LKP
> robot insists on using Reported-by: tag, but that's not fully correct.
> The robot reports an issue with the patch, not the issue that is being
> fixed by the patch. Describe additional tags to be used while submitting
> patches.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> index 66029999b587..3a24d90fa385 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> @@ -544,6 +544,25 @@ future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
>  Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
>  acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
>  
> +Additional tags to be used while submitting patches
> +---------------------------------------------------
> +
> +The tags described previously do not always cover the needs of the development
> +process.
> +
> +For example, if the kernel test robot reports an issue in the patch, the robot
> +insists that the next version of the patch gets the Reported-by: and Closes:
> +tags.  While the Closes: tag can be considered correct in such a case, the
> +Reported-by: tag is definitely not correct. The LKP robot hasn't reported the
> +issue that is being fixed by the patch, but instead it has reported an issue
> +with the patch. To be more precise you may use the Improved-thanks-to: tag for
> +the next version of the patch.
> +
> +Another frequent case is when you want to express gratitude to the colleagues,
> +who helped to improve the patch, but neither the Co-developed-by: nor
> +Suggested-by: tags are appropriate. In such case you might prefer to use
> +Discussed-with:, Listened-by:, or Discussed-over-a-beer-with: tags.
> +

This is an amazing idea!

Though I wonder if we should use the industry standard X- prefix for those:
i.e. X-Code-generator: or X-Sent-some-messages-about-this-that-were-left-unread-to:
to clarify they are extensions to the usual workflow.

I think the decision on this would be pretty obvious after reading the
current recommendation for X- prefixes in RFC 6648.

I like this change!
Nikita

>  Reviewer's statement of oversight
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  
> 
> ---
> base-commit: 13ee4a7161b6fd938aef6688ff43b163f6d83e37
> change-id: 20240401-additional-trailers-2b764f3e4aee
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>

Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: describe additional tags

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 08:17:03AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> Described tags do not fully cover development needs. For example the LKP
> robot insists on using Reported-by: tag, but that's not fully correct.
> The robot reports an issue with the patch, not the issue that is being
> fixed by the patch. Describe additional tags to be used while submitting
> patches.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> index 66029999b587..3a24d90fa385 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> @@ -544,6 +544,25 @@ future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
>  Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
>  acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
>  
> +Additional tags to be used while submitting patches
> +---------------------------------------------------
> +
> +The tags described previously do not always cover the needs of the development
> +process.
> +
> +For example, if the kernel test robot reports an issue in the patch, the robot
> +insists that the next version of the patch gets the Reported-by: and Closes:
> +tags.  While the Closes: tag can be considered correct in such a case, the
> +Reported-by: tag is definitely not correct. The LKP robot hasn't reported the
> +issue that is being fixed by the patch, but instead it has reported an issue
> +with the patch. To be more precise you may use the Improved-thanks-to: tag for
> +the next version of the patch.
> +
> +Another frequent case is when you want to express gratitude to the colleagues,
> +who helped to improve the patch, but neither the Co-developed-by: nor
> +Suggested-by: tags are appropriate. In such case you might prefer to use
> +Discussed-with:, Listened-by:, or Discussed-over-a-beer-with: tags.
> +

I really like the idea of defining two additional tags for these
purposes ("Improved-from-review-feedback/testing-by" and "Cred-to").

I do however think that in order to gain acceptance and widespread
usage, they need to be defined in the same clear fashion as the entires
under the "Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, ..." section.

Regards,
Bjorn

>  Reviewer's statement of oversight
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  
> 
> ---
> base-commit: 13ee4a7161b6fd938aef6688ff43b163f6d83e37
> change-id: 20240401-additional-trailers-2b764f3e4aee
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
> 

Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: describe additional tags

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 21:59, Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@quicinc.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 08:17:03AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > Described tags do not fully cover development needs. For example the LKP
> > robot insists on using Reported-by: tag, but that's not fully correct.
> > The robot reports an issue with the patch, not the issue that is being
> > fixed by the patch. Describe additional tags to be used while submitting
> > patches.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> > index 66029999b587..3a24d90fa385 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> > @@ -544,6 +544,25 @@ future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
> >  Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
> >  acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
> >
> > +Additional tags to be used while submitting patches
> > +---------------------------------------------------
> > +
> > +The tags described previously do not always cover the needs of the development
> > +process.
> > +
> > +For example, if the kernel test robot reports an issue in the patch, the robot
> > +insists that the next version of the patch gets the Reported-by: and Closes:
> > +tags.  While the Closes: tag can be considered correct in such a case, the
> > +Reported-by: tag is definitely not correct. The LKP robot hasn't reported the
> > +issue that is being fixed by the patch, but instead it has reported an issue
> > +with the patch. To be more precise you may use the Improved-thanks-to: tag for
> > +the next version of the patch.
> > +
> > +Another frequent case is when you want to express gratitude to the colleagues,
> > +who helped to improve the patch, but neither the Co-developed-by: nor
> > +Suggested-by: tags are appropriate. In such case you might prefer to use
> > +Discussed-with:, Listened-by:, or Discussed-over-a-beer-with: tags.
> > +
>
> I really like the idea of defining two additional tags for these
> purposes ("Improved-from-review-feedback/testing-by" and "Cred-to").

I think that the from-review / from-testing might be too verbose. I'd
prefer to keep the existing tag.

As for Cred-to I'm probably missing the usecase that you have in mind.

>
> I do however think that in order to gain acceptance and widespread
> usage, they need to be defined in the same clear fashion as the entires
> under the "Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, ..." section.

Of course.

>
> Regards,
> Bjorn
>
> >  Reviewer's statement of oversight
> >  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >
> > ---
> > base-commit: 13ee4a7161b6fd938aef6688ff43b163f6d83e37
> > change-id: 20240401-additional-trailers-2b764f3e4aee
> >
> > Best regards,
> > --
> > Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
> >



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry