On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:43 AM Matthieu Baerts
<matthieu.baerts@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> @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?
As long as it's a public link, I guess that just documents what the
drm people have been doing.
I'm not convinced "Closes" is actually any better than just "Link:",
though. I would very much hope and expect that the actual closing of
any bug report is actually done separately and verified, rather than
some kind of automated "well, the commit says it closes it, so.."
So honestly, I feel like "Link:" is just a better thing, and I worry
that "Closes:" is then going to be used for random internal crap.
We've very much seen people wanting to do that - having their own
private bug trackers, and then using the commit message to refer to
them, which I am *violently* against. If it's only useful to some
closed community, it shouldn't be in the public commits.
And while the current GPU people seem to use "Closes:" the right way
(and maybe some other groups do too - but it does seem to be mostly a
freedesktop thing), I really think it is amenable to mis-use in ways
"Link:" is not.
The point of "Link:" is explicitly two-fold:
- it makes it quite obvious that you expect an actual valid web-link,
not some internal garbage
- random people always want random extensions, and "Link:" is
_designed_ to counter-act that creeping "let's add a random new tag"
disease. It's very explicitly "any relevant link".
and I really question the value of adding new types of tags,
particularly ones that seem almost designed to be mis-used.
So I'm not violently against it, and 99% of the existing uses seem
fine. But I do note that some of the early "Closes:" tags in the
kernel were very much complete garbage, and exactly the kind of thing
that I absolutely detest.
What does
Closes: 10437
mean? That's crazy talk. (And yes, in that case it was a
kernel.bugzilla.org number, which is perfectly fine, but I'm using it
as a very real example of how "Closes:" ends up being very naturally
to mis-use).
End result: I don't hate our current "Closes:" uses. But I'm very wary of it.
I'm not at all convinced that it really adds a lot of value over
"Link:", and I am, _very_ aware of how easily it can be then taken to
be a "let's use our own bug tracker cookies here".
So I will neither endorse nor condemn it, but if I see people using it
wrong, I will absolutely put my foot down.
Linus
