Hi Thorsten, Linus, @Linus: in short, we would like to continue using the "Closes:" tag (or similar, see below) with a URL in commit messages. They are useful to have public bug trackers doing automated actions like closing a specific ticket. Any objection from your side? The full thread is visible there: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20230314-doc-checkpatch-closes-tag-v1-0-1b83072e9a9a@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/ @Thorsten: thank you for your reply! On 16/03/2023 10:22, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 15.03.23 18:44, Matthieu Baerts wrote: >> Since v6.3, checkpatch.pl now complains about the use of "Closes:" tags >> followed by a link [1]. It also complains if a "Reported-by:" tag is >> followed by a "Closes:" one [2]. >> >> As detailed in the first patch, this "Closes:" tag is used for a bit of >> time, mainly by DRM and MPTCP subsystems. It is used by some bug >> trackers to automate the closure of issues when a patch is accepted. >> >> Because this tag is used for a bit of time by different subsystems and >> it looks like it makes sense and it is useful for them, I didn't bother >> Linus to get his permission to continue using it. If you think this is >> necessary to do that up front, please tell me and I will be happy to ask >> for his agreement. > > Due to how he reacted to some "invented" tags recently, I'd think it > would be appropriate to CC him on this patchset, as he then can speak up > if he wants to (and I assume a few more mails don't bother him). Sure, just did with a short summary. >> The first patch updates the documentation to explain what is this >> "Closes:" tag and how/when to use it. The second patch modifies >> checkpatch.pl to stop complaining about it. > > I liked Andrew's `have been using "Addresses:" on occasion. [...] more > humble [...]` comment. Sadly that tag is not supported by GitLab and > GitHub. But well, "Resolves" is and also a bit more humble if you ask > me. How about using that instead? Assuming that Konstantin can work with > that tag, too, but I guess he can. I don't mind changing the tag name but I still have a preference to use 'Closes:' simply because it was used ~500 times in the past. If we want to change, it is probably the best time to do so but for me, the fact we -- MPTCP subsystem -- use the same tag as the DRM subsystem (and ClangBuiltLinux and Debian) without consulting each other -- if I'm not mistaken -- is a sign it is a good tag :) > I also wonder if the texts for the documentation could be shorter. > Wouldn't something like this do? > > `Instead of "Link:" feel free to use "Resolves:" with an URL instead, if > the issue was filed in a public bug tracker that will consider the issue > resolved when it noticed that tag.` > > [s/Resolves/Closes/ if we stick to that] Sure, I'm not used to write doc and I appreciate your suggestion to improve that. I might change one or two words but I have no objection to write this in the v2 once we agreed on the name of this tag. Also, should I use the same text in both process/5.Posting.rst and process/submitting-patches.rst? > Side note: makes we wonder if we should go "all in" here to avoid > confusion and allow "Resolves" everywhere, even for links to lore. Personally, I would recommend that, it might even be useful for other bots like regzbot: a patch can be linked to one discussion but not fixing the issue and even fixing another one instead. It might be useful for a bot to be able to distinguish the two without depending on a not 100% reliable AI ;-) A concrete example: patch 1/2 of this series is linked to a bug report [1]. The ticket can be closed only when patch 2/2 will be applied. Cheers, Matt [1] https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/issues/373 -- Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions www.tessares.net
