On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 04:31:52PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 04:02:04PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> >> On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 03:14:56PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> > We have a lot of Link: tags in commits these days and they are >> >> >> > not formally defined in the kernel documentation. Let's put >> >> >> > a separate paragraph about it in submitting-patches.rst where >> >> >> > most other tags are defined. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> >> >> >> > Cc: Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> > Reported-by: Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> > --- >> >> >> > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 21 ++++++++++++++++---- >> >> >> > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst >> >> >> > index ba5e944c7a63..20ef984aa743 100644 >> >> >> > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst >> >> >> > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst >> >> >> > @@ -643,9 +643,22 @@ which stable kernel versions should receive your fix. This is the preferred >> >> >> > method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See :ref:`describe_changes` >> >> >> > for more details. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > +14) Link: tags >> >> >> > +-------------- >> >> >> > + >> >> >> > +A Link: attribute can be used to provide a link back to a protocol of a >> >> >> > +discussion pertaining to the patch. A typical link looks like this: >> >> >> > + >> >> >> > + Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/<message-id> >> >> >> > + >> >> >> > +Any HTTP[S] links can be referenced. It is customary for maintainers to add >> >> >> > +Link: tags to reference discussions on mailing lists, and this can be done >> >> >> > +automatically with the git tool when applying patches in mailbox format, see >> >> >> > +:ref:`Documentation/maintainer/configure-git.rst <configure git>`. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'd like to emphasize even more strongly that it is applied by the >> >> >> maintainer or committer, and should reference the patch that got >> >> >> applied. And that the patch submitters shouldn't try to add it >> >> >> themselves. (Which makes you wonder about the placement in >> >> >> submitting-patches.rst.) IMO other references should use References: >> >> >> that is already widely used. >> >> > >> >> > I'm the maintainer of phylink. During discussions, I may propose a >> >> > patch for someone to try. When successful, I'll send a new email >> >> > submitting the patch officially to davem as the networking maintainer >> >> > as an entirely separate thread. >> >> > >> >> > Using Link: to the patch that was submitted officially is obviously >> >> > impossible, but you would want to link to the discussion that resulted >> >> > in the patch, rather than the official submission - which would >> >> > generally be the submission plus an "applied" reply. >> >> >> >> If there are N versions of the patch with discussion that eventually >> >> lead to the final version that was applied, which one of the previous >> >> patch versions or discussions do you think should be linked to? IMO the >> >> only one that actually is unambiguous is the patch that got applied. IMO >> >> only patches that were submitted to a mailing list should be applied. >> > >> > Even if it's just the patch submission and an "applied" reply. To me, >> > that seems to be just noise. >> > >> > My point with the above scenario is that the discussion that resulted >> > in the patch being proposed is the relevant discussion that needs to >> > be linked to the patch - which will include the context about why the >> > patch was generated and its testing. The official submission will >> > contain none of that. >> > >> > I guess what this is highlighting is that different people have >> > different ways of working, and trying to force one thing (Link:) to >> > be used with one way of working doesn't scale across the whole kernel. >> > >> > So, stating that Link: should only be added by a maintainer or >> > committer will have a detrimental effect on workflows that do not >> > match the one you have in mind. >> >> Basically this boils down to the question whether it is generally more >> useful to have a Link: tag with a very specific meaning and potentially >> *other* less specific additional tags for other purposes, or to not >> define a specific meaning to the Link: tag at all. >> >> I promote the former, with e.g. References: used for more free form >> references. I'm really fine with either, but with the latter I'll just >> filter out submitter added Link: tags and turn them to References: or >> something in my corner of the kernel. (Meaning that lax Link: tags will >> have a detrimental effect on workflows that do not match the one you >> have in mind... ;) > > Well, I've just done it again: > > - Patch submitted sends a patch series that uses some of my code > - I review the series, and spot deficiencies in it which can be > solved by patching my code to add additional functionality. > - I create a patch for my code, and send it as a reply to that > thread. The discussion in the thread is entirely relevant to > the patch. > - They review it and decide whether or not it solves their problem > and whether they want to use that approach. > - If successful, I send it "officially" as an entirely separate > thread. > - Maybe Andrew Lunn reviews it and sends a reviewed-by tag. > - DaveM applies it and sends an "applied" message. > > With Link: pointing at the "official" submission, all the context > behind why the patch was necessary gets lost. > > With Link: pointing at the email in the original discussion that > contained the patch proposal, the discussion for the patch (including > all the things that you're talking about) get properly linked to. > So, I would much rather have Link: pointing to this discussion rather > than a useless "it was reviewed and applied" set of emails, which we > know anyway from the attributation tags that are on the commit. > > I guess with your workflow is along the lines of: > > - Patch gets officially submitted > - Patch gets reviewed and some discussion happens > - Result of the discussion is to apply the patch > - Patch gets applied with Link: to the official submission > > which does seem appropriate to ensure that the Link: tag is added > when the patch is applied. I did understand your workflow from the start, thank you. That's not the problem. I'm not sure that you understand our workflow. But it doesn't matter; it's clear that they are different. In your workflow, the value for the tag is subjective. In our workflow, it's not, it's unambiguous. And there is really no point in debating the relative merits of the workflows. The *only* question is, whether we should both use the tag Foo: for the different meanings and different workflows, or whether one should use Foo: and the other should use Bar:. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
