----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > Von: "Johannes Berg" <johan...@sipsolutions.net> > On Tue, 2023-06-06 at 21:23 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: >> >> > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <l...@intel.com> >> > > > Closes: >> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202305311135.zgmt1gyr-...@intel.com/ >> > > >> > > Are you sure Reported-by and Closes make sense? >> > > AFAIK the report was only on your first patch and nothing against >> > > upstream. >> > > So stating this in the updated patch is in vain. >> > >> > I left the metadata in only for the sake of posterity. If it's not >> > helpful, I'm ok with removing it. >> > >> >> IMO using Reported-by in cases like this is harmful, as it makes commits seem >> like bug fixes when they are not. > > I've yet to see anyone disagree with that, and yet, the robot actively > asks for such tags to be included in patch resubmissions. > > On the one hand, I can understand their desire to be recognised for > their efforts. At this point then we might suggest that we introduce a > different tag, say "Improved-by:" or "Issues-found-by:" or something.
Robots don't have feelings. No need to worry. ;-) > On the other hand, I don't feel like we should give a robot more > recognition than we give _people_ reviewing, and we currently really > only recognise them by a Reviewed-by tag. Then again, that doesn't work > with the robot - it is pretty much looking at each patch and only > comments on a small fraction. We also really don't want it to comment on > each and every patch ... > > > So it seems we should ask the robot maintainers to just stop suggesting > those tags? Agreed. Thanks, //richard _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
