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=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,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 50414C63777 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:02:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) (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 B58A221D7A for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:02:40 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B58A221D7A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C062040E; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:02:39 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FzkTngnK73RZ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:02:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74764203EE; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:02:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 357B5C0FA8; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:02:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77520C0FA7 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:02:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D33187652 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:02:34 +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 OHElPktcNclW for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:02:33 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ej1-f68.google.com (mail-ej1-f68.google.com [209.85.218.68]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B39A873E6 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:02:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ej1-f68.google.com with SMTP id g20so1434030ejb.1 for ; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 20:02:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FRmp5HqhPLGN2wPmX9L3DuKRGCI0S5P9+p2ESlsHTAM=; b=yM+hbwJ36D/TYAUeZ3O30jzREK/jVR9brUei9BDukg0w08FYtWh/Qug2wO456yLgfp jvHp+FbGBpkWrruqNUc3XB6SJWEUTLLPyZJ4NoAqIkivZtDl7g84h2I+qh1Tc2UKG31Z aYZ+UsaUDuCh2hoTASBZ5lcCOyi3uvnJrRqljImr+pOuXXpuinuHcix1AIcPAxNrguu+ qesnH7oIXdcSMK8jjQgB/QG0+6UmLu778AuIc4GNUMQwhSt+lywOyZ73AwLIHkV3x07C PiPpfKMPOAxajoZuDN0ju+w3mq29U1gpopsr28rpLlVJBLayNGhOktN7I7QmQMJEcviB BJQw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FRmp5HqhPLGN2wPmX9L3DuKRGCI0S5P9+p2ESlsHTAM=; b=Ud76dxxIAkbV6fP7+jSmY0Zw//kebFBK2xBwQSr1sPWPItXz47sqmGv4AtCcF/a3+4 4PFI5OffRncB0EPghuze4RbNcpVSbHH3uEQAcccuiDOuoaR8LO01FBPzN/Wgc/RaxH7U yTMaRIHOu4tGBniUSZnFQ7kdo8CR6ZosxfvnJlOagOICJetYQV+YeR1pjj07GC+Dp7lk 6usIHnkTjxxB7cdXMse1gFZhNIJ8Rn9zTNWFREdFyXzEBZ3+DwBi719CwCsv0F1askWT zZy9s3desYpuRe3xNCg6FtEoFmwKoTMUJSOTzrpWHpPuxy/IbFvq89xqNY+yP6pHfQPX 155Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532AettLbSWufn64NpSTVTjDC97Grui1jnbOiScqickayTL34h+9 NF/r7APqvto/u6TU3IvI0dVz8YF6rEvi4WWucWiovA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz8lTotrwgwkMAe4sN9k99aQ0CNk+3DhdhJIcU2FwxmpkrPaO+HwFYlT1nUoFBGEPS9/e4cQ19zU35f5Fedh28= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:518a:: with SMTP id y10mr887972ejk.323.1606968151661; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 20:02:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Dan Williams Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 20:02:27 -0800 Message-ID: To: Vlastimil Babka Cc: LKML , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" 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 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. Along those lines, how is this situation different than the feedback that helps improve a patch that does not necessarily get credited by Reviewed-by:? Links to thank you notes in cover letters seems more appealing than moving more review / fix logs into the main history. _______________________________________________ Ksummit-discuss mailing list Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss