Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 31 Mar 2023 11:08:43 +0100
From:   Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To:     Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>
CC:     Matthieu Baerts <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Andy Whitcroft <apw@canonical.com>,
        Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>,
        Dwaipayan Ray <dwaipayanray1@gmail.com>,
        Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com>,
        Kai =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wasserb=E4ch?= <kai@dev.carbon-project.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Airlie <airlied@gmail.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, <mptcp@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] docs & checkpatch: allow Closes tags with links
Message-ID: <cf5a3e73-c97d-4f98-80d7-4bcc68eb557a@spud>
References: <20230314-doc-checkpatch-closes-tag-v3-0-d1bdcf31c71c@tessares.net>
 <2194d19d-f195-1a1e-41fc-7827ae569351@leemhuis.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sMLH2/sMXXEvCsA+"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2194d19d-f195-1a1e-41fc-7827ae569351@leemhuis.info>
Precedence: bulk

--sMLH2/sMXXEvCsA+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 11:39:22AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> -Please check the link to make sure that it is actually working and points
> -to the relevant message.
> +If the URL points to a bug report that is fixed by the patch, use 'Close=
s:'
> +instead.

This is not specifically a comment about your additional diff, but this
sprang to mind (again) while reading it.
I have been wondering if this sort of thing will lead to inconsistency.=20
Reports sometimes report more than one issue at once. Other times a
patch that is (intentionally) not a complete fix for the problem.
Using Closes: in those cases is not really true, as it does not close
the report.
Having a series of N patches, each of which purport to close an issue,
also doesn't seem quite right.
The word Closes has a meaning and "forcing" the use of Closes: for
reports implies meaning that may not be present.

I suppose it is true that just because documentation or checkpatch says
to do something, doesn't mean that you **have** to do it but I don't
want to be the one on the Rx side of a rant...


--sMLH2/sMXXEvCsA+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRh246EGq/8RLhDjO14tDGHoIJi0gUCZCaxKgAKCRB4tDGHoIJi
0tXzAQDYkO5GAuTFyz0Dvwf4L1NEyHqz2c9/ib0AqzTqT2eJDAD+LHrHwO6Glr7O
3EOtr+9fzQGH1+jlQnxnBRaF2dYZjQE=
=47sB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--sMLH2/sMXXEvCsA+--