On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 08:17:03AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > Described tags do not fully cover development needs. For example the LKP > robot insists on using Reported-by: tag, but that's not fully correct. > The robot reports an issue with the patch, not the issue that is being > fixed by the patch. Describe additional tags to be used while submitting > patches. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > index 66029999b587..3a24d90fa385 100644 > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > @@ -544,6 +544,25 @@ future patches, and ensures credit for the testers. > Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found > acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement: > > +Additional tags to be used while submitting patches > +--------------------------------------------------- > + > +The tags described previously do not always cover the needs of the development > +process. > + > +For example, if the kernel test robot reports an issue in the patch, the robot > +insists that the next version of the patch gets the Reported-by: and Closes: > +tags. While the Closes: tag can be considered correct in such a case, the > +Reported-by: tag is definitely not correct. The LKP robot hasn't reported the > +issue that is being fixed by the patch, but instead it has reported an issue > +with the patch. To be more precise you may use the Improved-thanks-to: tag for > +the next version of the patch. > + > +Another frequent case is when you want to express gratitude to the colleagues, > +who helped to improve the patch, but neither the Co-developed-by: nor > +Suggested-by: tags are appropriate. In such case you might prefer to use > +Discussed-with:, Listened-by:, or Discussed-over-a-beer-with: tags. > + This is an amazing idea! Though I wonder if we should use the industry standard X- prefix for those: i.e. X-Code-generator: or X-Sent-some-messages-about-this-that-were-left-unread-to: to clarify they are extensions to the usual workflow. I think the decision on this would be pretty obvious after reading the current recommendation for X- prefixes in RFC 6648. I like this change! Nikita > Reviewer's statement of oversight > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > --- > base-commit: 13ee4a7161b6fd938aef6688ff43b163f6d83e37 > change-id: 20240401-additional-trailers-2b764f3e4aee > > Best regards, > -- > Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
