On 31.03.23 12:08, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 11:39:22AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > >> -Please check the link to make sure that it is actually working and points >> -to the relevant message. >> +If the URL points to a bug report that is fixed by the patch, use 'Closes:' >> +instead. > > This is not specifically a comment about your additional diff, but this > sprang to mind (again) while reading it. > I have been wondering if this sort of thing will lead to inconsistency. > Reports sometimes report more than one issue at once. Other times a > patch that is (intentionally) not a complete fix for the problem. > Using Closes: in those cases is not really true, as it does not close > the report. > > Having a series of N patches, each of which purport to close an issue, > also doesn't seem quite right. > The word Closes has a meaning and "forcing" the use of Closes: for > reports implies meaning that may not be present. > > I suppose it is true that just because documentation or checkpatch says > to do something, doesn't mean that you **have** to do it but I don't > want to be the one on the Rx side of a rant... Yeah, maybe checkpath.pl should allow a "Link" after a "Reported-by" for cases like this, then developers could save "Closes" for the patch that addresses the last of the issues the report is about. OTOH checkpatch.pl currently just prints a warning, so developers could ignore this and do the above already now, as you say. Guess it depends on how often we expect "one report with multiple issue" to happen. Maybe this is an indicator that we are on the wrong track in general and should not do any of this and just stick to "Link:". Ciao, Thorsten
