linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: handling-regressions.rst: clarify that "Closes:" tags work too

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: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 10:38:52 +0200
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To: Karel Balej <balejk@...fyz.cz>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
 regressions@...ts.linux.dev, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, workflows@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: handling-regressions.rst: clarify that
 "Closes:" tags work too

On 28.03.24 20:29, Karel Balej wrote:
> The regressions handling manual claims that regzbot associates patches
> fixing an issue with the report based on the occurrence of the
> appropriate "Link:" trailers. It reasons that this does not add any
> burden on the maintainers/bug fix authors as this is already mandated by
> the "Submitting patches" guide. In fact however, the guide encourages
> using "Link:" tags for related discussions or issues which the patch
> fixes only partially, recommending "Closes:" for full resolutions.
> 
> Despite it not being mentioned anywhere in the "Handling regressions"
> guide, regzbot does in fact take the "Closes:" tags into account and
> seems to in fact treat them fully equivalently to "Link:" tags.
> 
> Clarify this in the regressions handling guide by always mentioning both
> of the tags.

Many thx for this and the other patch. I had planned to do something
like this myself, but never got around to.

There is just one thing that makes me slightly unhappy: this tells
readers that they can use both, but leaves the question "what's the
difference" respectively "in which situation should I use one or the
other" unanswered.

To answer that question: in a ideal world developers would use "Closes:"
when a change resolves an issue, and "Link" when it's somehow related to
a report, but not resolving the problem.

But we don't live in that world and I wonder if we ever reach that point
where regzbot could act accordingly. Nevertheless I'd say it would be
wise to write the docs towards that ideal world. E.g.: tell developers
to uses 'Closes:', but in some places briefly hint that "'Link:' works
for now, too".

I also find the patch description a bit verbose; and it would be good to
turn the text upside down: first outline what the patch, then maybe
describe the "why".

Ciao, Thorsten