Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] btrfs: Check each block group has corresponding chunk at mount time

From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>,
	Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>, Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] btrfs: Check each block group has corresponding chunk at mount time
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 17:45:20 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180704154520.GY3126@twin.jikos.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b30b48c9-7e31-bde0-ea9d-10545a4ba613@suse.com>

On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 12:08:02PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >> Also for evry patch which fixes a specific issue from one of the
> >> reported on bugzilla.kernel.org just use the Link: tag to point to the
> >> original report on bugzilla that will make it easier to relate the
> >> fixes to the original report.
> > 
> > Never heard of "Link:" tag.
> > Maybe it's a good idea to added it to "submitting-patches.rst"?
> 
> I guess it's not officially documented but if you do git log --grep
> "Link:" you'd see quite a lot of patches actually have a Link pointing
> to the original thread if it has sparked some pertinent discussion. In
> this case those patches are a direct result of a bugzilla bugreport so
> having a Link: tag makes sense.

The tag section of the commit has some predefined tags that could be
somehow "legally binding" like the Signed-off, other can help to gather
statistics about the devlopment process (reviewed, reported, tested) and
the rest is basically free-form that should make sense to a human
reader. So Link: or Bugzilla: would work. There were suggestions to
formalize the links to email discussions but there was also opposition
to formalize too much. Also, the important bits should be in the
changelog as the mail archives are volatile as we've seen already.