[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2092891129.3692555.1686126895090.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at>
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 10:34:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>,
Azeem Shaikh <azeemshaikh38@...il.com>,
Maxim Krasnyansky <maxk@....qualcomm.com>,
anton ivanov <anton.ivanov@...bridgegreys.com>,
linux-hardening <linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Reported-by/Closes tag for uncommitted issues (was: Re: [PATCH
v2] uml: Replace strlcpy with strscpy)
----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Johannes Berg" <johannes@...solutions.net>
> On Tue, 2023-06-06 at 21:23 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
>>
>> > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>
>> > > > Closes:
>> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202305311135.zGMT1gYR-lkp@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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists