Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-126790-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Message-ID: <b3b37454-df45-4826-ac5a-85c687f99d20@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2024 08:19:13 -0700
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: handling-regressions.rst: clarify that
 "Closes:" tags work too
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@leemhuis.info>, Karel Balej <balejk@matfyz.cz>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, regressions@lists.linux.dev,
 linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 workflows@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240328194342.11760-1-balejk@matfyz.cz>
 <20240328194342.11760-3-balejk@matfyz.cz>
 <dfa22ac1-36e9-48da-a2a8-8d7818c09187@leemhuis.info>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <dfa22ac1-36e9-48da-a2a8-8d7818c09187@leemhuis.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 4/1/24 1:38 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 28.03.24 20:29, Karel Balej wrote:
>> The regressions handling manual claims that regzbot associates patches
>> fixing an issue with the report based on the occurrence of the
>> appropriate "Link:" trailers. It reasons that this does not add any
>> burden on the maintainers/bug fix authors as this is already mandated by
>> the "Submitting patches" guide. In fact however, the guide encourages
>> using "Link:" tags for related discussions or issues which the patch
>> fixes only partially, recommending "Closes:" for full resolutions.
>>
>> Despite it not being mentioned anywhere in the "Handling regressions"
>> guide, regzbot does in fact take the "Closes:" tags into account and
>> seems to in fact treat them fully equivalently to "Link:" tags.
>>
>> Clarify this in the regressions handling guide by always mentioning both
>> of the tags.
> 
> Many thx for this and the other patch. I had planned to do something
> like this myself, but never got around to.
> 
> There is just one thing that makes me slightly unhappy: this tells
> readers that they can use both, but leaves the question "what's the
> difference" respectively "in which situation should I use one or the
> other" unanswered.
> 
> To answer that question: in a ideal world developers would use "Closes:"
> when a change resolves an issue, and "Link" when it's somehow related to
> a report, but not resolving the problem.

I use Link: when I fix only part of an LKP report and Closes: when I fix
all of one.

> But we don't live in that world and I wonder if we ever reach that point
> where regzbot could act accordingly. Nevertheless I'd say it would be
> wise to write the docs towards that ideal world. E.g.: tell developers
> to uses 'Closes:', but in some places briefly hint that "'Link:' works
> for now, too".

I don't see Link: going away any time in the "near" future.

> I also find the patch description a bit verbose; and it would be good to
> turn the text upside down: first outline what the patch, then maybe
> describe the "why".

It's almost amusing that you find something verbose.  ;)

-- 
#Randy