On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 12:54:32PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 09:51:33AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 08:16:42PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:47:32PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:34:35PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:18:30PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 01:44:20PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think this misunderstands the problem that Andy is trying to fix. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The situation: I write a patch. I post it for review. A bot does > > > > > > > something and finds a bug (could be compile-error, could be boot > > > > > > > problem). That bot sends a bug report with a suggestion to add > > > > > > > Reported-by:. That suggestion is inappropriate because the bug never > > > > > > > made it upstream, so it looks like the bot reported the "problem" > > > > > > > that the patch "fixes". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's not unique to "new feature" patches. If I'm fixing a bug and > > > > > > > my fix also contains a bug spotted by a bot, adding Reported-by > > > > > > > makes it look like the bot spotted the original bug, rather than > > > > > > > spotting a bug in the fix. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The best thing to do in this case is nothing. Do not credit the bot. > > > > > > > Maybe add a Checked-by:, but that would be a new trailer and I really > > > > > > > don't think we need a new kind of trailer to get wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems like the only way to fix this is to fix the bots. Adding more > > > > > > documentation is unlikely to help in this case. > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but if you re-read Mathews description > > above, it still seems to me like the issue is that the bots are trying > > to claim credit for finding things that haven't been merged yet. > > > > Your suggestion is to document that the bots should be ignored. My > > suggestion is to fix the bots. > > Originally the kbuild bot used to not have that notice but adding it > meant that kbuild bot got a lot more visibility. The truth is that > managers love metrics and it helps people get paid. > > The whole point of kbuild-bot was to search the lists and test code > before it gets merged. If they just waited and tested linux-next they > would get their reported by tags because most trees don't rebase. But > we're punishing them for being better at their job. It's a perverse > incentive. I hear you. But I also get Matthew's and Andy's point about it not being quite right to give an automatic test program Reported-by credit for finding, say, an unused variable in a not yet merged patch. And perhaps even more so since real reviewers often get no credit at all (but perhaps a mention in a cover letter). > We should create a new tag for finding bugs during review. Yeah, I guess your perverse incentive argument applies equally to human reviewers even if I'm also reluctant to going down this path. Johan
