Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ea32eb02-5e44-0469-772b-34b5cb882543@suse.cz> <CAPcyv4jDHMt4PpR2Htvw27rn5i5sCkwXtoZH-rFbtG8Hj7x1sg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201203093458.GA16543@unreal> <CAMuHMdVcPELarE=eJEc-=AdyfmhhZQsYtUggWCaetuEdk=VpMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201203104047.GD16543@unreal> <X8ku1MmZeeIaMRF4@kroah.com>
 <202012081619.6593C87D3@keescook> <13d04c4cc769ebd1dd58470f4d22ada5c9cd28e7.camel@perches.com>
 <20201209075849.GD2767@kadam> <a6dfe760-c3b4-8bc4-3c7f-cc1208b626fa@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <a6dfe760-c3b4-8bc4-3c7f-cc1208b626fa@suse.cz>
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 10:18:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdWtJnkK5LP+_YLWvZ5knnd+i72h60PA+Z-EqjNYdEN3SA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] crediting bug reports and fixes folded into
 original patch
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>,
        "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" 
        <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 9:45 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
> On 12/9/20 8:58 AM, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:01:49PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 16:34 -0800, Kees Cook wrote:
> >>
> >> > If not "Adjusted-by", what about "Tweaked-by", "Helped-by",
> >> > "Corrected-by"?
> >>
> >> Improved-by: / Enhanced-by: / Revisions-by:
> >>
> >
> > I don't think we should give any credit for improvements or enhancements,
>
> Well, some are actually useful and not about reviewer's preferred style :) But
> if an author redoes the patch as a result, it's their choice to mention useful
> improvements in the next version's change log.
>
> > only for fixes.  Complaining about style is its own reward.
>
> Right, let's focus on fixes and reports of bugs, that would have resulted in a
> standalone commit, but don't.
>
> > Having to redo a patch is already a huge headache.  Normally, I already
> > considered the reviewer's prefered style and decided I didn't like it.
> > Then to make me redo the patch in an ugly style and say thankyou on
> > top of that???  Forget about it.  Plus, as a reviewer I hate reviewing
> > patches over and over.
> >
> > I've argued for years that we should have a Fixes-from: tag.  The zero
>
> Standardizing the Fixes-from: tag (or any better name) would be a forward
> progress, yes.
>
> > day bot is already encouraging people to add Reported-by tags for this
> > and a lot of people do.
>
> "Reported-by:" becomes ambiguous once the bugfix for the reported issue in the
> patch is folded, as it's no longer clear whether the bot reported the original
> issue the patch is fixing, or a bug in the fix. So we should have a different
> variant. "Fixes-reported-by:" so it has the same prefix?

Taken-into-account-comments-from:

Any terse English word for that?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds