linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] docs: submitting-patches: clarify that signers may use their discretion on tags

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: <20250113103645.1f23b3b7@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 10:36:45 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Neal Gompa <neal@...pa.dev>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Jonathan
 Corbet <corbet@....net>, workflows@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 patches@...ts.linux.dev, Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>, Masahiro
 Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
 tech-board@...ups.linuxfoundation.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman
 <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Linus Torvalds
 <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
 Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] docs: submitting-patches: clarify that signers may
 use their discretion on tags

On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 09:22:27 -0500
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 12, 2025 at 10:47:02AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > 
> > A tag must not be dropped without the tag submitter's authorization.
> > Otherwise it doesn't matter what you write here, the submitter *will*
> > feel unwelcome.
> > 
> > It is rude and discouraging to do so without their acceptance of doing so.  
> 
> In some cases, if the reviewer hasn't taken the less than subtle hints
> that their reviews are unwelcome and are discouraging patch
> submitters, as far as I'm concerned, if they feel unwelcome, that is a
> *feature* and not a *bug*.
> 
> I'm not saying that is the case for you, but there are reviewers that
> add negative value in the ecosystem.  The assumption that all tag
> submitters are people that need to feel welcome might mostly true, but
> it is not always the case.  This is why it MUST ultimately be up to
> the maintainer.  I do not want the rules that force me to reward
> people that should be discouraged, not encouraged.

I try to add all tags that are meaningful, but a lot of times I already
pulled in the patch, and there's been several times tags came in after I
did a pull request to Linus! (for fixes patches). Once I do a pull request to
Linus, only Linus can have me change that commit (if there's an issue with
it).

For linux-next, I will add tags, even when Linus told me to avoid doing so.

That said, I have ignored several "Reviewed-by" tags when they appear
random. If you send a "Reviewed-by" without a single comment, and I don't
know you, it is meaningless to me, and I will not add it.

Now for people I don't know, if they came in and found an issue with a
patch which requires another revision, I will most definitely add their
Reviewed-by for the next version (if they send one), and will likely take
Reviewed-by tags from them in the future without comments (up to a point).

There's also been several cases that someone sent a Reviewed-by tag and
when I take a look at the patch I find an obvious bug. That will cause me
to ignore that reviewer in the future. Adding that tag comes with
responsibilities. As I mentioned in another thread, if I give a Reviewed-by
and a bug happens on that commit, I will spend time to help fix it.

-- Steve