On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 12:43:31 AM CET Michael Ellerman wrote:
> "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")
Stephen has already quoted from that doc, but it only gives the format of the
summary line as an example.
> How would we make it more formal than that?
Say somewhere that this particular summary formatting is required?
Also, tags are more of a maintainers' thing and SubmittingPatches doesn't look
like the best place for documenting how the maintainers are expected to format
their commits.
> > 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).
A human can look at the summary after a script has not found the commit by
ID, but the human then doesn't care about the quoting characters.
Also it is rather straightforward to strip the quoting characters in a script
whatever they are.
My point basically is that in order to call something "malformed", you need
to provide a formal definition of what is expected. An example in
SubmittingPatches doesn't seem quite sufficient to me for that role.
Cheers,
Rafael
