On 29.11.21 23:16, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > 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 :) We didn't have one here. :-D But hey, it wasn't out of envy, I'm a little ignorant to local holiday/festival seasons, too. > 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? Ha, good point, will fix 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. Yeah, I'm aware of that. And to be honest: I don't have a strong interest in this, just think it might be the right thing to do. And I just got the impression that regzbot's dependence on the Link: tag for linking to regression reports is making the ambiguity of the tag worse. That lead to the thought: well, simply bring it up now and see what people think; if they don't like it, I can tell myself "well, I tried to improve it, but it was not welcomed" and sleep well at night. At least as long as my cat allows me to. :-) > Also, I think that documents like specs should be called out separately > in the changelog, with text saying what they actually are. I wonder a little if that is worth the trouble, but hey, why not, fine with me. >> + - ``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). Hmmm, I liked the interplay for Reported/Reported-by, but yeah, for Reviewed/Reviewed-by I see the problem now. > If there's a "Reviewed" do we still need "Reviewed-by"? That > should be spelled out, whichever way is wanted. I didn't want to undermine or obsolete "Reviewed-by" at all. I sometimes wonder if this and "Tested-by" should be stored somewhere else (in "git notes" or something), so they can be extended after a change got committed -- but that's a whole different topic and something I'm even less interested in driving forward. :-D Maybe "Reviewed" was simply the wrong term. Maybe "Review:", "Posted:", or "MergeRequest:" would be better in general and avoid this problem. > 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. Yeah, maybe, but that results in long lines and forces people to type more. >> +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. Okay. > 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. I'm not strongly attached to it. I added it after I noticed that it's at least for me slightly unclear if the colon is part of the tag or used to precede the explanation for the tag (in the 'Signed-off-by' case it's both at the same time). And after adding the proposed tags the html view imho looked a lot better. Thx for the feedback! Ciao, Thorsten
