From: Thorsten Leemhuis <email@example.com>
To: Greg KH <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [Bug 215117] New: ucsi_acpi: kernel NULL pointer dereference #forregzbot
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:39:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <email@example.com> (raw)
On 22.12.21 10:02, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 09:37:55AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> My biggest problem is: many developers don't place the Link: tags. I
>> obviously expected that up to a point. But what I didn't expect: so much
>> opposition to place them, because quite a few developers think they are
>> reserved for maintainers, as they are only meant for linking to the
>> submission of the applied patch; a few also think others tags should be
>> needed for linking to bugs.
> Hah, I can't even get developers to add a Fixes: or a Cc: stable tag,
> trying to get them to add a Link: tag to a lore reference is going to be
> an uphill battle.
Yeah, that was expected, but I didn't expect how often I had to explain
"yes, this is how the Link: tag is used, too, just check the docs"... :-D
> Right now, the best thing we have is the git hook that auto-adds the
> Link: tag that points to the lore thread where the patch came from.
> Maintainers don't have the energy or time to add anything other than
> that, so I think you just might have to rely on Fixes: for a while.
Yeah, guess you are right.
>> My proposed "introduce the commit message tags 'Reported:' and
>> 'Posted:'" patch likely would have helped here, but didn't get any
>> traction :-/
>> Maybe that was partly due to the stupid mixup in the subject of the
>> cover letter, but whatever. So I guess I'll drop the bold idea. I
>> consider proposing to create "Reported: <url>" while leaving ambiguous
>> Link: alone, which will help my case. Note sure if I also should propose
>> to drop "Reported-by" at the same time, which makes things easier for
>> developers, as that tag can only be set after asking the reporter.
> Nah, I add "Reported-by:" all the time without asking for explicit
> permission, relying on the public email instead.
It was also news to me that an explicit permission is needed, but
Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst states so: ``Be careful in the
addition of tags to your patches: only Cc: is appropriate for addition
without the explicit permission of the person named.```
> If there was some way
> to automate the Reported: tag, maybe it could be used, but again, that's
> a lot of manual work to do, which is going to be a hard sell.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-22 9:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <firstname.lastname@example.org/>
2021-12-16 9:22 ` [Bug 215117] New: ucsi_acpi: kernel NULL pointer dereference Thorsten Leemhuis
2021-12-16 11:47 ` Heikki Krogerus
2021-12-21 18:06 ` [Bug 215117] New: ucsi_acpi: kernel NULL pointer dereference #forregzbot Thorsten Leemhuis
2021-12-22 6:32 ` Greg KH
2021-12-22 8:37 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2021-12-22 9:02 ` Greg KH
2021-12-22 9:39 ` Thorsten Leemhuis [this message]
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).