On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 01:19:53PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
>
> Plus this adds some cognitive load on those writing these patches, which
> increases the global effort. It's already difficult enough to figure the
> appropriate Cc list when writing a fix, let's not add more burden in this
> chain.
>
> ...
>
> I'm also defending this on other projects. I find it important that
> efforts are reasonably shared. If tolerating 1% failures saves 20%
> effort on authors and adds 2% work on recipients, that's a net global
> win. You never completely eliminate mistakes anyway, regardless of the
> cost.
The only way I can see to square the circle would be if there was some
kind of script that added enough value that people naturally use it
because it saves *them* time, and it automatically inserts the right
commit metadata in some kind of standardized way.
I've been starting to use b4, and that's a great example of a workflow
that saves me time, and standardizes things as a very nice side
effect. So perhaps the question is there some kind of automation that
saves 10-20% effort for authors *and* improves the quality of the
patch metadata for those that choose to use the script?
- Ted
