Re: Proposal: Enhancing Commit Tagging for Stable Kernel Branches

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 10:49:17AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jul 2024, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 10:56:14AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2024-07-18 at 09:48 -0500, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 09:34:04AM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > It's no "regression", per se, but
> > > > > a new feature that didn't exist in the past, after all.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > If it's not a regression then don't add a Fixes tag.
> > > 
> > > Really, no, that's what got us into this issue in the first place: if
> > > you only tag regressions with Fixes:, then we don't need cc:stable. 
> > > Fixes: should be for anything that updated what was done in that prior
> > > commit (including white space and spellings).  That way there's no
> > > debate about whether it should apply and it's easy for Maintainers to
> > > verify.
> > 
> > I'm honestly surprised you would say this.  You're very much in the
> > minority view here.  I've reviewed over a thousand spelling mistake
> > fixes across the whole tree as part of kernel-janitors and I don't
> > remember anyone asking for a Fixes tag.
> > 
> > The one area where people debate is for harmless static checker fixes
> > such as deleting an unnecessary variable, but the majority of
> > maintainers say that doesn't qualify for a Fixes tag.
> > 
> > The majority opinion is that Fixes is only for bugs.
> 
> First you said "regressions".  Then you said "bugs".  Which is it?
> 
> If I add a new feature that doesn't work as documented, it is clearly a
> bug.  I don't think it is a regression.  I think the patch that corrects
> the bug (either the code or the documentation or both) is a fix and
> should be marked as such.

Yeah.  I said that badly.  It should be for bugs.  Fixes tags mostly
point to "Add <support> for something".  They mostly aren't regressions.

regards,
dan carpenter