linux-kernel - Re: [RFC for GIT] pull-request: add praise to people doing QA

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 15 Jan 2017 16:35:24 -0800
From:   Junio C Hamano <gitster@...ox.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     git@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC for GIT] pull-request: add praise to people doing QA

Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de> writes:

> === new stuff starts here
>
> with much appreciated quality assurance from
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Shevchenko (1):
>       (Rev.) i2c: piix4: Avoid race conditions with IMC
>
> Benjamin Tissoires (1):
>       (Test) i2c: do not enable fall back to Host Notify by default
>
> Vladimir Zapolskiy (1):
>       (Rev.) i2c: print correct device invalid address
>
> === diffstat, ...
>
> This patch is a very early RFC to collect opinions. I am not very familiar with
> the git codebase, but I guess using a filter needs to be reworked, the
> dependency on GNU awk may be frowned upon (though 'asorti' is really useful
> here), the reg-ex are not super-solid, and it should be a command-line option,
> of course. That all being said, it was a fast way to produce what I would like
> to add to my pull requests for the i2c subsystem and to see if other kernel/git
> maintainers are interested in something like this.
>
> Disclaimer: while this patch applies to the git codebase, I have to admit that
> I simply patched around in /usr/lib/git-core of my Debian machine :)
>
> So much for now, let me know what you think,

So the idea is to have list of those whose names appear on
Reviewed-by: and Tested-by: collected and listed after the list of
commit titles and author names.  I personally do not see much
downsides in doing so, but I do not consume that many PRs myself, so
let's hear from those who actually do process many of them.

As to the implementation, I am wondering if we can make this somehow
work well with the "trailers" code we already have, instead of
inventing yet another parser of trailers.  

In its current shape, "interpret-trailers" focuses on "editing" an
existing commit log message to tweak the trailer lines.  That mode
of operation would help amending and rebasing, and to do that it
needs to parse the commit log message, identify trailer blocks,
parse out each trailer lines, etc.  

There is no fundamental reason why its output must be an edited
original commit log message---it should be usable as a filter that
picks trailer lines of the selected trailer type, like "Tested-By",
etc.