lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 1/1] docs: process: submitting-patches: Clarify the Reported-by usage
    On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:47:32PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
    > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:34:35PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
    > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:18:30PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
    > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 01:44:20PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
    >
    > > > > I think this misunderstands the problem that Andy is trying to fix.
    > > > >
    > > > > The situation: I write a patch. I post it for review. A bot does
    > > > > something and finds a bug (could be compile-error, could be boot
    > > > > problem). That bot sends a bug report with a suggestion to add
    > > > > Reported-by:. That suggestion is inappropriate because the bug never
    > > > > made it upstream, so it looks like the bot reported the "problem"
    > > > > that the patch "fixes".
    > > > >
    > > > > It's not unique to "new feature" patches. If I'm fixing a bug and
    > > > > my fix also contains a bug spotted by a bot, adding Reported-by
    > > > > makes it look like the bot spotted the original bug, rather than
    > > > > spotting a bug in the fix.
    > > > >
    > > > > The best thing to do in this case is nothing. Do not credit the bot.
    > > > > Maybe add a Checked-by:, but that would be a new trailer and I really
    > > > > don't think we need a new kind of trailer to get wrong.
    > > >
    > > > It seems like the only way to fix this is to fix the bots. Adding more
    > > > documentation is unlikely to help in this case.
    > >
    > > Links to the documentation at least may clarify the point in case of a
    > > review.
    >
    > Sure.
    >
    > > > Can't we file a bug to whoever is running the bots (Intel?) and ask them
    > > > to remove the suggestion to add a Reported-by when the bot is testing a
    > > > patch (as opposed to mainline or even -next)?
    > >
    > > The granularity here is not a repo. It's a code itself and in some cases
    > > it might be easy to distinguish new feature from the code modifications,
    > > but when code is already there and feature is just an extension of the
    > > existing file(s), it's hard to tell. And it might be true or not.
    >
    > Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Perhaps you and Matthew
    > are talking about different things after all.

    I'm talking about your suggestion to fix the bots. It's not easy.
    The problem is the same as Matthew explained.

    > But for Matthew's issue, the case where the bots are testing posted
    > patches ("Thank you for the patch! Yet something to improve:) should be
    > easy to fix by simply dropping or rephrasing the "kindly add following
    > tag as appropriate" suggestion.

    Yes, but this is not "fixing the bots", it falls into category "working around"
    them, because even for a clear bug report the suggestion can be stronger.
    And doing that properly without kinda AI not easy.

    > When testing merged code, it may be harder to tell whether the branch in
    > question can be rebased or not (and an incremental fix with a
    > reported-by tag is warranted).

    --
    With Best Regards,
    Andy Shevchenko


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2022-01-31 19:19    [W:2.863 / U:0.820 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site