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]

Message-ID: <5ea364e9-8a7d-4239-bf3b-1f4ae13f311b@leemhuis.info>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:27:57 +0200
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, 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 01.04.24 17:19, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 4/1/24 1:38 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> I use Link: when I fix only part of an LKP report and Closes: when I fix
> all of one.

Yup.

>> 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 don't see Link: going away any time in the "near" future.

Sure, I didn't mean to imply that! Just in the scope of the document and
the sections where the tag is mentioned I think (but it would be good to
recheck) it's always about a "resolving a reported regression", so
Closes there makes more sense. But yeah, might be wise to spell that all
out.

Karel: if I'm asking too much here, I could pick up your patches and
improve upon them to handle this. Or we simply wait until two other
regzbot features are in place, then I could fix this as part of some
other changes.

>> 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".
> It's almost amusing that you find something verbose.  ;)

:-D

I often wonder what the main reason for that verbosity it. That I used
to write for a mainstream computer magazine? Or that English is a second
language to me? Whatever.

Ciao, Thorsten