On 4/1/24 1:38 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > On 28.03.24 20:29, Karel Balej wrote: >> The regressions handling manual claims that regzbot associates patches >> fixing an issue with the report based on the occurrence of the >> appropriate "Link:" trailers. It reasons that this does not add any >> burden on the maintainers/bug fix authors as this is already mandated by >> the "Submitting patches" guide. In fact however, the guide encourages >> using "Link:" tags for related discussions or issues which the patch >> fixes only partially, recommending "Closes:" for full resolutions. >> >> Despite it not being mentioned anywhere in the "Handling regressions" >> guide, regzbot does in fact take the "Closes:" tags into account and >> seems to in fact treat them fully equivalently to "Link:" tags. >> >> Clarify this in the regressions handling guide by always mentioning both >> of the tags. > > Many thx for this and the other patch. I had planned to do something > like this myself, but never got around to. > > There is just one thing that makes me slightly unhappy: this tells > readers that they can use both, but leaves the question "what's the > difference" respectively "in which situation should I use one or the > other" unanswered. > > To answer that question: in a ideal world developers would use "Closes:" > when a change resolves an issue, and "Link" when it's somehow related to > a report, but not resolving the problem. I use Link: when I fix only part of an LKP report and Closes: when I fix all of one. > But we don't live in that world and I wonder if we ever reach that point > where regzbot could act accordingly. Nevertheless I'd say it would be > wise to write the docs towards that ideal world. E.g.: tell developers > to uses 'Closes:', but in some places briefly hint that "'Link:' works > for now, too". I don't see Link: going away any time in the "near" future. > I also find the patch description a bit verbose; and it would be good to > turn the text upside down: first outline what the patch, then maybe > describe the "why". It's almost amusing that you find something verbose. ;) -- #Randy
