ksummit.lists.linux.dev archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy6545@gmail.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>
Cc: ksummit <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] crediting bug reports and fixes folded into original patch
Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 13:52:25 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFhKne9ZSbwrH6-g7og2BBEEDGd6ScDnZTNg3znQLvLDCDfeoA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <694039d6e386d999fd74d038cf2627f5b3b0ca71.camel@HansenPartnership.com>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2680 bytes --]

It's not so much "clean history" that's the desire. It's "don't leave
landmines for git bisect".

On Thu., Dec. 3, 2020, 08:58 James Bottomley, <
James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2020-12-03 at 00:43 +0100, 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.
>
> It has been the case since forever that discussion which improves an
> uncommitted patch is only captured in email (which now may be preserved
> in a link tag).  Patch updates that come in after the patch is
> committed get their own commit.  We've tried to move people away from
> counting commits as an indicator of upstream eminence, but it's still a
> fact of life that this is what matters to a lot of open source
> community managers.  The tension we have is between liking a clean
> commit in the tree as opposed to a sequence of commits tracking the
> evolution of the patch and this community manager desire to track
> patches.
>
> So there are two embedded questions here: firstly, should we be as
> wedded to clean history as we are, because showing the evolution would
> simply solve this?  Secondly, if we are agreed on clean history, how
> can we make engagement via email as important as engagement via commit
> for the community managers so the Link tag is enough?  I've got to say
> I think trying to add tags to recognize patch evolution is a mistake
> and we instead investigate one of the two proposals above.
>
> James
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ksummit-discuss mailing list
> Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3463 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 186 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Ksummit-discuss mailing list
Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-12-03 18:52 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
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 [this message]
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=CAFhKne9ZSbwrH6-g7og2BBEEDGd6ScDnZTNg3znQLvLDCDfeoA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=willy6545@gmail.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --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).