On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 11:17:54AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2023-06-07 at 17:10 +0800, Philip Li wrote: > > > > So it seems we should ask the robot maintainers to just stop suggesting > > > > those tags? > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > Thanks all for the feedback. We will carefully consider how to present the > > suggestion clearly. > > > > For now, because the bot covers both upstream and developer repos, there > > can be various situations, such as the bug is found in upstream. > > Ah yes, that was actually in my mind, but I forgot to write about it, > sorry. > > I agree completely, in case that you find a bug in an already committed > tree, and there will be a separate commit to fix it, it's completely > reasonable and useful to have those tags. > > > So the bot > > tries to let author decide how to apply the tags in appropriate way that > > they feel comfortable. > > Right. It just seems that many authors aren't really all that familiar > with the processes yet, and take the suggestion at face value. > > > In the report, we now uses phrases like below > > > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable > > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <l...@intel.com> > > | Closes: > > https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202305311135.zgmt1gyr-...@intel.com/ > > > > But this may be not clear enough or not the best way to suggest. We will > > consider whether we can detect some situations (like RFC patch) which is > > no need for such tags to avoid confusion. > > > > Right. Maybe the only thing really needed would be to say something like
Thanks a lot, the suggestion really helps us to get this better. > > "If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new > version of the same patch/commit), kindly add ..." Is that ok we just take this phrase as a quick improvement for first step, which is "If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags:" This could help remind for most cases if not all. Also this allows us not doing "complex" judgement by the bot itself. > > or even just > > "If you fix the issue in a separate commit, kindly add ..." > > so it's clear that if you're changing the commit, it's not really > something that should be done? In which case probably even a Fixes tag > should be there, but I wouldn't want to recommend adding that since the > commits may still change etc. > > I don't know all the processes behind it, but I'm thinking that even if > the bot picked up a patch from the list, it could get committed before > and then fixed in a separate commit. You are right, thanks for reminding this. The bot monitors both patches in the mailing list and repos of developers. It could happen that a patch exists in both place, though there's logic to avoid testing both but can't promise which side got tested first. > > johannes _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
