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
next prev 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 [Ksummit-discuss] crediting bug reports and fixes folded into original patch 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 \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).