On 23 September 2018 at 14:53, Bas Nieuwenhuizen <b...@basnieuwenhuizen.nl> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 3:42 PM Emil Velikov <emil.l.veli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 21 September 2018 at 17:49, Dylan Baker <dy...@pnwbakers.com> wrote: >> > Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-09-21 09:07:58) >> >> On 21 September 2018 at 16:55, Dylan Baker <dy...@pnwbakers.com> wrote: >> >> > Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-09-21 08:47:30) >> >> >> On 21 September 2018 at 08:19, Juan A. Suarez Romero >> >> >> <jasua...@igalia.com> wrote: >> >> >> > On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 20:16 +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:33 PM Eric Engestrom >> >> >> >> <eric.engest...@intel.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > On Thursday, 2018-09-20 19:17:57 +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote: >> >> >> >> > > Was missing the init, found by Emil. >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > Fixes: d17443a4593 "radv: Use build ID if available for cache >> >> >> >> > > UUID." >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Reviewed-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engest...@intel.com> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > CC: <mesa-sta...@lists.freedesktop.org> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Cc'ing mesa-stable has no effect when you're already adding the >> >> >> >> > proper Fixes: tag :) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Last time I asked about the difference between Fixes and CC, the >> >> >> >> conclusion I got that Fixes is only best effort for the stable >> >> >> >> branches and that if it does not apply it will be dropped silently, >> >> >> >> while for the CC ones the release manager will notify you. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In previous releases that was the way it worked: we always our best >> >> >> > effort to >> >> >> > apply CC and Fixes patches. The difference was that if we couldn't >> >> >> > apply the >> >> >> > patch, then we were only notifying in the pre-announcement >> >> >> > "Rejected" section >> >> >> > about the CC, and silently ignoring the Fixes. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > But nowadays, we notify about all the candidates to stable, which >> >> >> > are CC and >> >> >> > Fixes. >> >> >> > >> >> >> Here is an alternative wording, hopefully it will make things clearer: >> >> >> >> >> >> Both CC and Fixes work and having both does not hurt. >> >> >> >> >> >> Fixes provides clear indication when/where the problem originates. >> >> >> Cc _explicitly_ requests the patch to be in stable - that's why we >> >> >> have the list + late nominations. >> >> >> >> >> >> It _explicit_ nomination does _not_ apply then the nominator is >> >> >> informed. >> >> >> >> >> >> -Emil >> >> > >> >> > Yeah, that's not useful. We don't need a "you can put this in if you >> >> > want but >> >> > don't tell me if you didn't". Either it's nominated or it's not. If >> >> > Fixes: >> >> > doesn't mean "I want this in any stable branch with commit X" then we >> >> > should >> >> > stop using the tag. >> >> > >> >> Fixes means "I want this _anywhere_ with commit X". No idea how you >> >> read my comment otherwise ;-) >> >> >> >> -Emil >> > >> > Where you said CC is _explicit_ but fixes isn't. Having two ways to do the >> > same >> > thing that are subtly different seems like a bad idea to me. >> > >> > I'm going to admit this is just another reason that I feel like our whole >> > stable >> > process is rather fragile and tedious. We have three ways to nominate a >> > patch >> > that are all subtly different, but those differences are not clearly >> > documented. >> >> Keep in mind that before I started the documentation was a mere >> fraction of what it is today. >> As I said multiple times if something is unclear - ask _and_ send >> patches to clarify the documentation. >> >> Sadly close to no patches appear :-( > > I'm happy to send patches to clarify the documentation once this > discussion is through. However, I'm not sure how to reconcile your > statements though: > > "Both CC and Fixes work and having both does not hurt. > > Fixes provides clear indication when/where the problem originates. > Cc _explicitly_ requests the patch to be in stable - that's why we > have the list + late nominations. > > It _explicit_ nomination does _not_ apply then the nominator is informed." > > which seems to say that patches with only "Fixes:" can get rejected > silently. (which would match Juan's old answer in > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-stable/2018-April/008072.html) > I _really_ should have read that clearer. I have no recollection of a Fixes patch which was rejected, might may have brought some confusion on my end.
> vs. > > "As a TL;DR _nothing_ is rejected silently ;-)" > > which seems to say that patches with only "Fixes:" can not get > rejected silently. (which matches what Dylan is saying) > > While documentation can help prevent future confusion/discussion on > this topic, which way should the documentation go, as these two > statements seem to contradict each other to me. > Agreed. I will be mentioning a thing or two about the history what things mean (from my POV that is) and why in a couple of days at XDC. After that I'm planning to gather feedback from everyone so we can adjust things accordingly. -Emil _______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
