From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BFCEC64E7B for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:35:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06F822222E for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:35:09 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 06F822222E Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9AC87751; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:35:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qGSBP8bbIiht; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:35:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC9D8773E; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:35:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B28C163C; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:35:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA0CBC0FA7 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:35:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955128773F for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:35:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VXQVhMw1+Oof for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:35:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0CC6D8773E for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:35:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:34:58 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1606988104; bh=h6V2Z6Ay9Kb533oQABEcHkhu3t7oaDyji1uVKbVJrAQ=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=E0kJZy8BcRUyY3dGn020pigVwcYCSFTBxzvt4Boj5HU+KgOcu45K1fMFIvZEdADT+ Y9aBTqNogF1wnOl6seDkkkFQPR3jdr8KX3LPTK31hiBV+zzWSmyFTqrTo//+BiAccN f883ZgarKaGGUP+4hz9PEUDVgCkwHWHpNf+YiLNmq9X/7oj4lowwXAkqOndKCTHC// /oPsJRIPB/LIP+f36t6QAeyzi0lWjtKPtv2pIxwL9Dsz9sDF/1iM4zwauA2l1Yq8tV KCnZzlAM9Bm0uELMu4kC2gPWO9obIMJL8nKVYFPkF/sn34ZpfjIkws0+YQraf5vEv4 2udRwrj4Q56TQ== From: Leon Romanovsky To: Dan Williams Message-ID: <20201203093458.GA16543@unreal> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , LKML , Vlastimil Babka Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] crediting bug reports and fixes folded into original patch X-BeenThere: ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Sender: "Ksummit-discuss" On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:02:27PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:44 PM Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > there was a bit of debate on Twitter about this, so I thought I would bring it > > here. Imagine a scenario where patch sits as a commit in -next and there's a bug > > report or fix, possibly by a bot or with some static analysis. The maintainer > > decides to fold it into the original patch, which makes sense for e.g. > > bisectability. But there seem to be no clear rules about attribution in this > > case, which looks like there should be, probably in > > Documentation/maintainer/modifying-patches.rst > > > > The original bug fix might include a From: $author, a Reported-by: (e.g. > > syzbot), Fixes: $next-commit, some tag such as Addresses-Coverity: to credit the > > static analysis tool, and an SoB. After folding, all that's left might be a line > > as "include fix from $author" in the SoB area. This is a loss of > > metadata/attribution just due to folding, and might make contributors unhappy. > > Had they sent the fix after the original commit was mainline and immutable, all > > the info above would "survive" in the form of new commit. > > > > So I think we could decide what the proper format would be, and document it > > properly. I personally wouldn't mind just copy/pasting the whole commit message > > of the fix (with just a short issue description, no need to include stacktraces > > etc if the fix is folded), we could just standardize where, and how to delimit > > it from the main commit message. If it's a report (person or bot) of a bug that > > the main author then fixed, preserve the Reported-by in the same way (making > > clear it's not a Reported-By for the "main thing" addressed by the commit). > > > > In the debate one less verbose alternatve proposed was a SoB with comment > > describing it's for a fix and not whole patch, as some see SoB as the main mark > > of contribution, that can be easily found and counted etc. I'm not so sure about > > it myself, as AFAIK SoB is mainly a DCO thing, and for a maintainer it means > > something else ("passed through my tree") than for a patch author. And this > > approach would still lose the other tags. > > > > Thoughts? > > How about a convention to add a Reported-by: and a Link: to the > incremental fixup discussion? It's just polite to credit helpful > feedback, not sure it needs a more formal process. Maybe "Fixup-Reported-by:" and "Fixup-Link:"? Thanks _______________________________________________ Ksummit-discuss mailing list Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss