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=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, 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 60DBAC64E7B for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:38:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C4120872 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 09:38:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730036AbgLCJht (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:37:49 -0500 Received: from mail-oi1-f193.google.com ([209.85.167.193]:36497 "EHLO mail-oi1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726603AbgLCJht (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2020 04:37:49 -0500 Received: by mail-oi1-f193.google.com with SMTP id x16so1549019oic.3 for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 01:37:33 -0800 (PST) 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=Jvny1rtUiDgjADL0gl6coThE7hbff0ih3DlnnP8/5jo=; b=Rc4/cxx0I80fW9WaaLqAaBy1WD2I1bUuUVJIzC/rQtoLoGkhU1S07EIf35NP7QFr5r hRHf60FQbXnWV+E2CPVkeWRzIyML6q6CB6TLKBYcXfoOER4/uax5LJf5Y2nj6P9FRyze Knz+JTT0jGBnD8Wh0P4hfFp626TwzS/N00JY8EMgt0EIZMAPe9h6kG5fra7ROC5Onc37 YqkyL2fcL0TbfbsoOYMfPaBffNReUA5QcVBZ5BcGuXzeBwOJpmhF0aXR3CmN5SpFohoI 4ukpPHDaMQF70ycPokiE8vi5SEjpm5CibZ3MXu7WHu7YmBNYMWNYa1J5Tctbh8b2R+eR iNpw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531eAlA0iJ1zwJUTzqhlBl4m2gPWi0XYA0bOkbLPLkunNhzdrzpQ Vq71pDSwScw3sRLkBsygjYR18xnyL9m3gQ6H96+KIKpy X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw4GKrS5Viye7DaliTruHqlREe1NdLISwc/nLmA8wqlEaJsNx9bI4Esu7LyGFrsK/31Ymq2sbT3Qb2UsLRC6Kc= X-Received: by 2002:aca:ec09:: with SMTP id k9mr1271015oih.153.1606988228261; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 01:37:08 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201203093458.GA16543@unreal> In-Reply-To: <20201203093458.GA16543@unreal> From: Geert Uytterhoeven Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 10:36:56 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] crediting bug reports and fixes folded into original patch To: Leon Romanovsky Cc: Dan Williams , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , LKML , Vlastimil Babka Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:35 AM Leon Romanovsky 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 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? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds