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=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 0A0C5C6369E for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 23:44:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133]) (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 2516F21D93 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 23:43:59 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 2516F21D93 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.cz Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ksummit-discuss-bounces@lists.linuxfoundation.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8B6878BC; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 23:43:59 +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 5enqoP30WwMd; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 23:43:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.linuxfoundation.org (lf-lists.osuosl.org [140.211.9.56]) by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CBC38786E; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 23:43:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lf-lists.osuosl.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B193C0FA8; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 23:43:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org (smtp1.osuosl.org [140.211.166.138]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BF57C0FA7 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 23:43:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A69086B77 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 23:43:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from whitealder.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tRGzxCuXgOTN for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 23:43:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by whitealder.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BC1F86B03 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 23:43:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9B8EAB63; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 23:43:52 +0000 (UTC) From: Vlastimil Babka To: "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2020 00:43:52 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Language: en-US Cc: LKML Subject: [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" 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? Vlastimil _______________________________________________ Ksummit-discuss mailing list Ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss