Hi all,
Let's say that there is a content creator who submits her first kernel
patch (touching drivers/staging/ of course to get her feet wet).
The patch supposes to fix a reported bug, with appropriate Fixes: tag.
But instead of using Link: or Closes: tag to the actual bug report in
the patch, she instead writes "Link to the bug report in my bio", as
it is the norm in social media world. Here in the context, her bio is
LinkedIn profile (IDK if there is a way to add arbitrary link there).
The link in LinkedIn profile, when clicked, will list many links
(including her usual social media campaigns and of course the bug report),
which makes reviewers confused about which link to the bug report she
means. In some cases, she may disambiguate by saying in the patch,
"Link to the bug report no. 99", to refer to the specific link number.
Is such practice a good idea?
Thanks.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 06:15:50PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Let's say that there is a content creator who submits her first kernel
> patch (touching drivers/staging/ of course to get her feet wet).
> The patch supposes to fix a reported bug, with appropriate Fixes: tag.
> But instead of using Link: or Closes: tag to the actual bug report in
> the patch, she instead writes "Link to the bug report in my bio", as
> it is the norm in social media world. Here in the context, her bio is
> LinkedIn profile (IDK if there is a way to add arbitrary link there).
> The link in LinkedIn profile, when clicked, will list many links
> (including her usual social media campaigns and of course the bug report),
> which makes reviewers confused about which link to the bug report she
> means. In some cases, she may disambiguate by saying in the patch,
> "Link to the bug report no. 99", to refer to the specific link number.
>
> Is such practice a good idea?
No.
On 12/21/23 18:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 06:15:50PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Let's say that there is a content creator who submits her first kernel
>> patch (touching drivers/staging/ of course to get her feet wet).
>> The patch supposes to fix a reported bug, with appropriate Fixes: tag.
>> But instead of using Link: or Closes: tag to the actual bug report in
>> the patch, she instead writes "Link to the bug report in my bio", as
>> it is the norm in social media world. Here in the context, her bio is
>> LinkedIn profile (IDK if there is a way to add arbitrary link there).
>> The link in LinkedIn profile, when clicked, will list many links
>> (including her usual social media campaigns and of course the bug report),
>> which makes reviewers confused about which link to the bug report she
>> means. In some cases, she may disambiguate by saying in the patch,
>> "Link to the bug report no. 99", to refer to the specific link number.
>>
>> Is such practice a good idea?
>
> No.
why?
I'm confused...
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 07:57:21PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> On 12/21/23 18:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 06:15:50PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Let's say that there is a content creator who submits her first kernel
> >> patch (touching drivers/staging/ of course to get her feet wet).
> >> The patch supposes to fix a reported bug, with appropriate Fixes: tag.
> >> But instead of using Link: or Closes: tag to the actual bug report in
> >> the patch, she instead writes "Link to the bug report in my bio", as
> >> it is the norm in social media world. Here in the context, her bio is
> >> LinkedIn profile (IDK if there is a way to add arbitrary link there).
> >> The link in LinkedIn profile, when clicked, will list many links
> >> (including her usual social media campaigns and of course the bug report),
> >> which makes reviewers confused about which link to the bug report she
> >> means. In some cases, she may disambiguate by saying in the patch,
> >> "Link to the bug report no. 99", to refer to the specific link number.
> >>
> >> Is such practice a good idea?
> >
> > No.
>
> why?
Exactly, why? What problem are you trying to solve here that has
actually come up in any sort of frequency?
"Link: " is something that should be used to point to a well-known and
stable reference for any future things, like red hat's bugzilla, or
lore.kernel.org. It's not for random social-media link reputation
spamming, sorry.
The "proper" way to handle this is to have in your Linked-in, or
whatever social media site you like, a list of your committed patches in
the git.kernel.org tree, don't polute the kernel log please.
greg k-h
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 02:10:03PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 07:57:21PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > On 12/21/23 18:51, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 06:15:50PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > >> Hi all,
> > >>
> > >> Let's say that there is a content creator who submits her first kernel
> > >> patch (touching drivers/staging/ of course to get her feet wet).
> > >> The patch supposes to fix a reported bug, with appropriate Fixes: tag.
> > >> But instead of using Link: or Closes: tag to the actual bug report in
> > >> the patch, she instead writes "Link to the bug report in my bio", as
> > >> it is the norm in social media world. Here in the context, her bio is
> > >> LinkedIn profile (IDK if there is a way to add arbitrary link there).
> > >> The link in LinkedIn profile, when clicked, will list many links
> > >> (including her usual social media campaigns and of course the bug report),
> > >> which makes reviewers confused about which link to the bug report she
> > >> means. In some cases, she may disambiguate by saying in the patch,
> > >> "Link to the bug report no. 99", to refer to the specific link number.
> > >>
> > >> Is such practice a good idea?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > why?
>
> Exactly, why? What problem are you trying to solve here that has
> actually come up in any sort of frequency?
I was scratching my itch whether common social media practices (such as that's
being discussed here) can be applied to kernel development.
>
> "Link: " is something that should be used to point to a well-known and
> stable reference for any future things, like red hat's bugzilla, or
> lore.kernel.org. It's not for random social-media link reputation
> spamming, sorry.
Understand.
>
> The "proper" way to handle this is to have in your Linked-in, or
> whatever social media site you like, a list of your committed patches in
> the git.kernel.org tree, don't polute the kernel log please.
>
That's the elegant way.
Thanks for explanation!
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 09:13:32PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> I was scratching my itch whether common social media practices (such as that's
> being discussed here) can be applied to kernel development.
The real problem is that someone's soecial media profile (whether it's
Linkedin, or Facebook, or Threads, or Twitter) is not a stable, fixed
resource. So at any time in the future, the bug report in the Social
media profile could get modified, or disappear when Elon Musk decides
to take a user's Twitter username[1] away so he can resell the highly
desireable account name to someone he likes better. The git log is
forever. So pointing to a transient resource from a permanent log is
a really, Really, REALLY bad idea.
[1] https://slate.com/technology/2023/08/x-twitter-usernames-music-take-away-interview.html
Common social media practices are often quite terrible, and this is a
great example about why they shouldn't be used for this purpose. The
bug report should be sent to a linux kernel mailing list, so everyone
can see it, and then they can use a lore.kernel.org URL as the stable
resource.
If the bug report is in some other source where the people who run it
understand the importance of stable information at stable URL's ---
for example, bugzilla.kernel.org, bugzilla.redhat.com,
bugs.debian.org, etc. that's also fine. But a social media profile,
which can be modified at the owner's whim (either of the social media
account, or the social media comapny, or someone who has $44 billion
dollars to carelessly throw around)? That way lies madness.
Just because something might "common social media pracitce", doesn't
mean that it's a good idea. In fact, some might argue that much of
what happens on social media has a negative value to society, but
that's a different debate....
Cheers,
- Ted
On Fri, Dec 22, 2023 at 07:42:35PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 09:13:32PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> > I was scratching my itch whether common social media practices (such as that's
> > being discussed here) can be applied to kernel development.
>
> The real problem is that someone's soecial media profile (whether it's
> Linkedin, or Facebook, or Threads, or Twitter) is not a stable, fixed
> resource. So at any time in the future, the bug report in the Social
> media profile could get modified, or disappear when Elon Musk decides
> to take a user's Twitter username[1] away so he can resell the highly
> desireable account name to someone he likes better. The git log is
> forever. So pointing to a transient resource from a permanent log is
> a really, Really, REALLY bad idea.
>
> [1] https://slate.com/technology/2023/08/x-twitter-usernames-music-take-away-interview.html
>
> Common social media practices are often quite terrible, and this is a
> great example about why they shouldn't be used for this purpose. The
> bug report should be sent to a linux kernel mailing list, so everyone
> can see it, and then they can use a lore.kernel.org URL as the stable
> resource.
>
> If the bug report is in some other source where the people who run it
> understand the importance of stable information at stable URL's ---
> for example, bugzilla.kernel.org, bugzilla.redhat.com,
> bugs.debian.org, etc. that's also fine. But a social media profile,
> which can be modified at the owner's whim (either of the social media
> account, or the social media comapny, or someone who has $44 billion
> dollars to carelessly throw around)? That way lies madness.
>
> Just because something might "common social media pracitce", doesn't
> mean that it's a good idea. In fact, some might argue that much of
> what happens on social media has a negative value to society, but
> that's a different debate....
Ted, thanks for the explanation!
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara