On Wed, 23 Sep 2020 at 17:39, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 04:52:18PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > I think the question is why we are retaining this Reported-by header > > to begin with. Even though the early feedback is appreciated, > > crediting the bot for eternity for a version of the patch that never > > got merged seems a bit excessive. Also, it may suggest that the bot > > was involved in reporting an issue that the patch aims to fix but that > > is not the case. > > That is supposed to be explained in [] properly so that there's no > misreading of why that tag's there. > > > The last thing we want is Sasha's bot to jump on patches adding new > > functionality just because it has a reported-by line. > > It should jump on patches which have Fixes: tags. But Sasha's bot is > nuts regardless. :-) > > > So I suggest dropping the Reported-by credit as well as the [] context > > regarding v1 > > So I don't mind having a Reported-by: tag with an explanation of what > it reported. We slap all kinds of tags so having some attribution for > the work the 0day bot does to catch such errors is reasonable. I presume > they track this way how "useful" it is, by counting the Reported-by's or > so, as they suggest one should add a Reported-by in their reports. > > And without any attribution what the 0day bot reported, it might decide > not to report anything next time, I'd venture a guess. > > And the same argument can be had for Suggested-by: tags: one could > decide not to add that tag and the person who's doing the suggesting > might decide not to suggest anymore. > > So I think something like: > > [ Fix a build breakage in an earlier version. ] > Reported-by: 0day bot > > is fine as long as it makes it perfectly clear what Reported-by tag > is for and as long as ts purpose for being present there is clear, I > don't see an issue... > I don't think it adds much value tbh, but I am not going to obsess about it either.
