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=-7.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 13CA6C64E8A for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:35:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A265322201 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:35:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2388454AbgLCJfp (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:35:45 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:56142 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388301AbgLCJfp (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:35:45 -0500 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 Cc: Vlastimil Babka , LKML , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] crediting bug reports and fixes folded into original patch Message-ID: <20201203093458.GA16543@unreal> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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