"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 11:43:05 PM CET Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi Rafael,
>>
>> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 23:13:16 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:55:40 PM CET Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> > > [I am experimenting with checking the Fixes tags in commits in linux-next.
>> > > Please let me know if you think I am being too strict.]
>> > >
>> > > Hi Rafael,
>> > >
>> > > Commits
>> > >
>> > > 62b33d57c534 ("drivers: thermal: int340x_thermal: Make PCI dependency explicit")
>> > > cd793ab22a93 ("x86/intel/lpss: Make PCI dependency explicit")
>> > > 42ac19e7b81e ("ACPI: EC: Look for ECDT EC after calling acpi_load_tables()")
>> > > 6c29b81b5695 ("platform/x86: apple-gmux: Make PCI dependency explicit")
>> > > 34783dc0182a ("platform/x86: intel_pmc: Make PCI dependency explicit")
>> > > 704658d1d3ae ("platform/x86: intel_ips: make PCI dependency explicit")
>> > > 5df37f3a1aa9 ("vga-switcheroo: make PCI dependency explicit")
>> > > da1df6ee4296 ("ata: pata_acpi: Make PCI dependency explicit")
>> > > ce97a22a596b ("ACPI / LPSS: Make PCI dependency explicit")
>> > >
>> > > Have malformed Fixes tags:
>> > >
>> > > There should be double quotes around the commit subject.
>> >
>> > Well, where does this requirement come from?
>> >
>> > It hasn't been there before AFAICS.
>>
>> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst has the following, but I
>> am sure people are happy to discuss changes and it does say "For
>> example", so maybe I am being to strict?
>
> If that's the source of it, then it's rather weak IMO.
>
> Formal requirements should be documented as such and I would expect that
> to happen through the usual process: patch submission, review, acceptance etc.
It is documented, in submitting-patches.rst.
That was submitted to lkml:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1396949135-27122-1-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@xxxxxxxxx/
And committed by Linus:
8401aa1f5997 ("Documentation/SubmittingPatches: describe the Fixes: tag")
How would we make it more formal than that?
> Moreover, extending advice on to how submit paches to formatting requirements
> for commits feels like a bit of a stretch to me.
>
>> The counter argument is that
>> there are various (semi-)automated processes that use these tags and
>> being consistent probably makes those processes (and life for those who
>> run them) easier.
>
> And frankly I wouldn't expect any of these to even look at the summary
> lines as they have not been consistent historically and the SHA-1 ID should
> be sufficient to identify the commit in question.
It usually is, but it's still a good sanity check to have the subject in
there, especially for cases where the SHA is wrong (though that should
be less of a problem in future due to Stephen doing these checks).
cheers
