Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Introduce the tags 'Reported:' and 'Reviewed:' in addition to 'Link:', > as the latter is overloaded and hence doesn't indicate what the provided > URL is about. Documenting these also provides clarity, as a few > developers have used 'References:' to point to problem reports; > nevertheless 'Reported:' was chosen for this purpose, as it perfectly > matches up with the 'Reported-by:' tag commonly used already and needed > in this situation already. > > Signed-off-by: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: workflows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thanks for flooding my inbox during a holiday week :) Just looking at this now. > v1/RFC: > - first, *rough version* to see how this idea is received in the > community > --- > Documentation/maintainer/configure-git.rst | 6 +-- > Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst | 54 ++++++++++++++------ > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 22 ++++---- > 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/maintainer/configure-git.rst b/Documentation/maintainer/configure-git.rst > index 80ae5030a590..8429d45d661c 100644 > --- a/Documentation/maintainer/configure-git.rst > +++ b/Documentation/maintainer/configure-git.rst > @@ -40,12 +40,12 @@ Creating commit links to lore.kernel.org > The web site http://lore.kernel.org is meant as a grand archive of all mail > list traffic concerning or influencing the kernel development. Storing archives > of patches here is a recommended practice, and when a maintainer applies a > -patch to a subsystem tree, it is a good idea to provide a Link: tag with a > +patch to a subsystem tree, it is a good idea to provide a Reviewed: tag with a > reference back to the lore archive so that people that browse the commit > history can find related discussions and rationale behind a certain change. > The link tag will look like this: > > - Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/<message-id> > + Reviewed: https://lore.kernel.org/r/<message-id> The *link* tag will look like that? [...] > +The tags in common use are: > + > + - ``Reported:`` points to a report of a problem fixed by this patch. The > + provided URL thus might point to a entry in a bug tracker or a mail in a > + mailing list archive. Typically this tag is followed by a "Reported-by:" > + tag (see below). > + > + - ``Link:`` points to websites providing additional backgrounds or details, > + for example a document with a specification implemented by the patch. So this is a serious change from how Link: is used now, and runs counter to the scripts used by a lot of maintainers. I suspect that this thread is only as short as it is because a lot of people haven't seen this yet; it could be a hard change to sell. Also, I think that documents like specs should be called out separately in the changelog, with text saying what they actually are. > + - ``Reviewed:`` ignore this, as maintainers add it when applying a patch, to > + make the commit point to the latest public review of the patch. Another question would be: what's the interplay between the (quite similar) "Reviewed" and "Reviewed-by" tags (and the same for the report tags). If there's a "Reviewed" do we still need "Reviewed-by"? That should be spelled out, whichever way is wanted. I do worry that the similarity is going to lead to a certain amount of confusion and use of the wrong tag. People have a hard time getting all the tags we have now right; adding more that look almost like the existing ones seems like a recipe for trouble. For these reasons, I would be more inclined toward Konstantin's suggestion of adding notes to the existing Link: tags. > +A third kind of tags are used to document which developers were involved in > +the development of the patch. Each of these uses this format:: > > tag: Full Name <email address> optional-other-stuff > > The tags in common use are: > > - - Signed-off-by: this is a developer's certification that he or she has > + - ``Signed-off-by:`` is a developer's certification that he or she has So this markup addition is a separate change that would belong in its own patch. Do we really need it, though? It clutters the text and irritates the anti-RST minority (which has been mercifully quiet recently) without really adding any benefit. Thanks, jon
