From: Leon Romanovsky <email@example.com> To: Greg KH <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, LKML <email@example.com>, Vlastimil Babka <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] crediting bug reports and fixes folded into original patch Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 21:04:54 +0200 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20201203190454.GG16543@unreal> (raw) In-Reply-To: <X8ku1MmZeeIaMRF4@kroah.com> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 07:30:44PM +0100, Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:36:56AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:35 AM Leon Romanovsky <email@example.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:02:27PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:44 PM Vlastimil Babka <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > > 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:"? > > > > > > And "Earlier-Review-Comments-Provided-by:"? > > > > > > How far do we want to go? > > > > I don't want to overload existing meaning of "Reported-by:" and "Link:", > > so anything else is fine by me. > > > > I imagine that all those who puts their own Reviewed-by, Signed-off-by > > and Tested-by in the same patch will be happy to use something like you > > are proposing - "Co-developed-Signed-Reviewed-Tested-by:" tag. > > We already have "Co-developerd-by:" as a valid tag, no need to merge > more into this :) It was joke, but the reality is even more exciting. See commit 71cc849b7093 ("KVM: x86: Fix split-irqchip vs interrupt injection window request") for the need of "Reported-Analyzed-Reviewed-Tested-by:" tag. And endless amount of commits with "Reviewed-Signed-by:" from maintainers that gives wrong impression that other maintainers merge code without reviewing it. Thanks _______________________________________________ Ksummit-discuss mailing list Ksummitemail@example.com https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-03 19:05 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-12-02 23:43 Vlastimil Babka 2020-12-03 4:02 ` Dan Williams 2020-12-03 9:34 ` Leon Romanovsky 2020-12-03 9:36 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2020-12-03 10:40 ` Leon Romanovsky 2020-12-03 18:30 ` Greg KH 2020-12-03 19:04 ` Leon Romanovsky [this message] 2020-12-09 0:34 ` Kees Cook 2020-12-09 5:01 ` Joe Perches 2020-12-09 7:58 ` Dan Carpenter 2020-12-09 8:45 ` Vlastimil Babka 2020-12-09 9:18 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2020-12-09 8:54 ` Joe Perches 2020-12-09 10:30 ` Dan Carpenter 2020-12-09 17:45 ` Dan Williams 2020-12-03 10:33 ` Dan Carpenter 2020-12-03 13:41 ` Julia Lawall 2020-12-03 13:58 ` James Bottomley 2020-12-03 16:55 ` Joe Perches 2020-12-03 19:17 ` Konstantin Ryabitsev 2020-12-03 19:24 ` Joe Perches 2020-12-03 21:13 ` James Bottomley 2020-12-03 18:52 ` Matthew Wilcox 2020-12-03 20:04 ` James Bottomley 2020-12-04 4:54 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20201203190454.GG16543@unreal \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: [Ksummit-discuss] crediting bug reports and fixes folded into original patch' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).