On 01.04.24 17:19, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 4/1/24 1:38 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >> On 28.03.24 20:29, Karel Balej wrote: >>> The regressions handling manual claims that regzbot associates patches >>> fixing an issue with the report based on the occurrence of the >>> appropriate "Link:" trailers. It reasons that this does not add any >>> burden on the maintainers/bug fix authors as this is already mandated by >>> the "Submitting patches" guide. In fact however, the guide encourages >>> using "Link:" tags for related discussions or issues which the patch >>> fixes only partially, recommending "Closes:" for full resolutions. >>> >>> Despite it not being mentioned anywhere in the "Handling regressions" >>> guide, regzbot does in fact take the "Closes:" tags into account and >>> seems to in fact treat them fully equivalently to "Link:" tags. >>> >>> Clarify this in the regressions handling guide by always mentioning both >>> of the tags. >> >> Many thx for this and the other patch. I had planned to do something >> like this myself, but never got around to. >> >> There is just one thing that makes me slightly unhappy: this tells >> readers that they can use both, but leaves the question "what's the >> difference" respectively "in which situation should I use one or the >> other" unanswered. >> >> To answer that question: in a ideal world developers would use "Closes:" >> when a change resolves an issue, and "Link" when it's somehow related to >> a report, but not resolving the problem. > > I use Link: when I fix only part of an LKP report and Closes: when I fix > all of one. Yup. >> But we don't live in that world and I wonder if we ever reach that point >> where regzbot could act accordingly. Nevertheless I'd say it would be >> wise to write the docs towards that ideal world. E.g.: tell developers >> to uses 'Closes:', but in some places briefly hint that "'Link:' works >> for now, too". > > I don't see Link: going away any time in the "near" future. Sure, I didn't mean to imply that! Just in the scope of the document and the sections where the tag is mentioned I think (but it would be good to recheck) it's always about a "resolving a reported regression", so Closes there makes more sense. But yeah, might be wise to spell that all out. Karel: if I'm asking too much here, I could pick up your patches and improve upon them to handle this. Or we simply wait until two other regzbot features are in place, then I could fix this as part of some other changes. >> I also find the patch description a bit verbose; and it would be good to >> turn the text upside down: first outline what the patch, then maybe >> describe the "why". > It's almost amusing that you find something verbose. ;) :-D I often wonder what the main reason for that verbosity it. That I used to write for a mainstream computer magazine? Or that English is a second language to me? Whatever. Ciao, Thorsten
