From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [96.44.175.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A73370 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 15:40:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6EC128011B; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:40:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1619106045; bh=2siloGvUFeivImMBTowcbnRSONxR6P12rHghowdJ0oM=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=LwKW25kuxhNjZe64UTyd0EwJAjpNXHt7rFJIm16So1oeHoPmH0TpStyKr90qpDyks 18NwJ9OtHjVNJTFQ5MB6WPq2omHhro6pklSmLXup7Y+y6BT3c+WPh6nOTps8vmffaW kmsisHaJulW/29YjGD7CGLvOQ+sRJR7tHFsyduwQ= Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pZ3oN7uQ-Pa4; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:40:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jarvis.int.hansenpartnership.com (unknown [IPv6:2601:600:8280:66d1::527]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6E66E12800F7; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:40:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hansenpartnership.com; s=20151216; t=1619106045; bh=2siloGvUFeivImMBTowcbnRSONxR6P12rHghowdJ0oM=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=LwKW25kuxhNjZe64UTyd0EwJAjpNXHt7rFJIm16So1oeHoPmH0TpStyKr90qpDyks 18NwJ9OtHjVNJTFQ5MB6WPq2omHhro6pklSmLXup7Y+y6BT3c+WPh6nOTps8vmffaW kmsisHaJulW/29YjGD7CGLvOQ+sRJR7tHFsyduwQ= Message-ID: <6ed3c03acf5aca727a443ea6e26e3b023a060905.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Subject: Re: [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] Rethinking the acceptance policy for "trivial" patches From: James Bottomley To: Mark Brown Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 08:40:35 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20210422153646.GI4572@sirena.org.uk> References: <20210422123559.1dc647fb@coco.lan> <99289ff4cf7b1e59f82c330728c80dc7e63319a7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20210422153646.GI4572@sirena.org.uk> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-J/blA/n5uRNiD7YBjOhm" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.4 X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 --=-J/blA/n5uRNiD7YBjOhm Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 16:36 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 08:28:00AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-04-22 at 08:32 -0400, Martin K. Petersen wrote: > > > Another metric that may be worth capturing is how many Fixes: > > > tags refer to patches authored by this submitter. > > =20 > > Or perhaps invert it: no bug fix without a Fixes: tag. Some of the > > human handlers of robot based finders, like Dan's smatch, do go > > back and figure out where the bug came from, but if we encourage > > the rule that if you're fixing a bug you must identify the origin > > and explain the bug it may help weed out some bogus fixes. >=20 > Script that use git blame to generate a commit to put in the Fixes: > tag incoming... Any system can be gamed, but I was thinking fixes helps ground the reviewer in where the bug was introduced. I also wasn't thinking fixes alone, but fixes: *and* explanation of the bug. James --=-J/blA/n5uRNiD7YBjOhm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABMIAB0WIQTnYEDbdso9F2cI+arnQslM7pishQUCYIGY8wAKCRDnQslM7pis hSM7AQDvJWjNjPYNCdblgpOLpvkb3BZL3anM1q3MUiHE6azuRwEAyytcBWfuup9E CS3ErEsS5gn87k3W66N4U7n8ZLhwPzo= =jcYb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-J/blA/n5uRNiD7YBjOhm--