On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 10:35 AM Leon Romanovsky <l...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:02:27PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:44 PM Vlastimil Babka <vba...@suse.cz> wrote: > > > there was a bit of debate on Twitter about this, so I thought I would > > > bring it > > > here. Imagine a scenario where patch sits as a commit in -next and > > > there's a bug > > > report or fix, possibly by a bot or with some static analysis. The > > > maintainer > > > decides to fold it into the original patch, which makes sense for e.g. > > > bisectability. But there seem to be no clear rules about attribution in > > > this > > > case, which looks like there should be, probably in > > > Documentation/maintainer/modifying-patches.rst > > > > > > The original bug fix might include a From: $author, a Reported-by: (e.g. > > > syzbot), Fixes: $next-commit, some tag such as Addresses-Coverity: to > > > credit the > > > static analysis tool, and an SoB. After folding, all that's left might be > > > a line > > > as "include fix from $author" in the SoB area. This is a loss of > > > metadata/attribution just due to folding, and might make contributors > > > unhappy. > > > Had they sent the fix after the original commit was mainline and > > > immutable, all > > > the info above would "survive" in the form of new commit. > > > > > > So I think we could decide what the proper format would be, and document > > > it > > > properly. I personally wouldn't mind just copy/pasting the whole commit > > > message > > > of the fix (with just a short issue description, no need to include > > > stacktraces > > > etc if the fix is folded), we could just standardize where, and how to > > > delimit > > > it from the main commit message. If it's a report (person or bot) of a > > > bug that > > > the main author then fixed, preserve the Reported-by in the same way > > > (making > > > clear it's not a Reported-By for the "main thing" addressed by the > > > commit). > > > > > > In the debate one less verbose alternatve proposed was a SoB with comment > > > describing it's for a fix and not whole patch, as some see SoB as the > > > main mark > > > of contribution, that can be easily found and counted etc. I'm not so > > > sure about > > > it myself, as AFAIK SoB is mainly a DCO thing, and for a maintainer it > > > means > > > something else ("passed through my tree") than for a patch author. And > > > this > > > approach would still lose the other tags. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > How about a convention to add a Reported-by: and a Link: to the > > incremental fixup discussion? It's just polite to credit helpful > > feedback, not sure it needs a more formal process. > > Maybe "Fixup-Reported-by:" and "Fixup-Link:"?
And "Earlier-Review-Comments-Provided-by:"? How far do we want to go? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds