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 7003CC433FE for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:29:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org (smtp4.osuosl.org [140.211.166.137]) (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 D1027208BA for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:29:40 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org D1027208BA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A098742A; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:29:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from fraxinus.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FBKL5JlI18-n; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by fraxinus.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC258740E; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AAFAC0FA8; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB18FC0FA7 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:29:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F0387B3B for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:29:38 +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 NyC0GeRoOZeV for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:29:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 448C587B33 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 18:29:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 19:30:44 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1607020177; bh=3XXWrx8mR/m+t5lqkDosOVllizg8JN+/aY2WXeZoxPU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=E+wVhhb8vKwfRAXg4lMwE0CQiykQ9fvsp0GdOILSHjBhqBWfPpTZABOCqifxuOXA6 PyMh1wR0QfzYpsFNWgxn7dbQhaAui5QFdNf9QFNnVfDDqVQJdR/hrxP7UrO0xxSbvK bzcukMCzOs51okUrLKRnhBeU1xK11BD1uBo20zUo= From: Greg KH To: Leon Romanovsky Message-ID: References: <20201203093458.GA16543@unreal> <20201203104047.GD16543@unreal> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201203104047.GD16543@unreal> Cc: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" , LKML , Vlastimil Babka 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 Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:36:56AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > 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? > > I don't want to overload existing meaning of "Reported-by:" and "Link:", > so anything else is fine by me. > > I imagine that all those who puts their own Reviewed-by, Signed-off-by > and Tested-by in the same patch will be happy to use something like you > are proposing - "Co-developed-Signed-Reviewed-Tested-by:" tag. We already have "Co-developerd-by:" as a valid tag, no need to merge more into this :) _______________________________________________ Ksummit-discuss mailing list Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss