On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 12:40:47PM +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 10:36:56AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I don't want to overload existing meaning of "Reported-by:" and "Link:",
> so anything else is fine by me.
>
> I imagine that all those who puts their own Reviewed-by, Signed-off-by
> and Tested-by in the same patch will be happy to use something like you
> are proposing - "Co-developed-Signed-Reviewed-Tested-by:" tag.
We already have "Co-developerd-by:" as a valid tag, no need to merge
more into this :)
