Re: Reported-by/Closes tag for uncommitted issues (was: Re: [PATCH v2] uml: Replace strlcpy with strscpy)

[Richard Weinberger]

----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Johannes Berg" <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On Tue, 2023-06-06 at 21:23 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
>> 
>> > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > > > Closes:
>> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202305311135.zGMT1gYR-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
>> > > 
>> > > Are you sure Reported-by and Closes make sense?
>> > > AFAIK the report was only on your first patch and nothing against upstream.
>> > > So stating this in the updated patch is in vain.
>> > 
>> > I left the metadata in only for the sake of posterity. If it's not
>> > helpful, I'm ok with removing it.
>> > 
>> 
>> IMO using Reported-by in cases like this is harmful, as it makes commits seem
>> like bug fixes when they are not.
> 
> I've yet to see anyone disagree with that, and yet, the robot actively
> asks for such tags to be included in patch resubmissions.
> 
> On the one hand, I can understand their desire to be recognised for
> their efforts. At this point then we might suggest that we introduce a
> different tag, say "Improved-by:" or "Issues-found-by:" or something.

Robots don't have feelings. No need to worry. ;-)
 
> On the other hand, I don't feel like we should give a robot more
> recognition than we give _people_ reviewing, and we currently really
> only recognise them by a Reviewed-by tag. Then again, that doesn't work
> with the robot - it is pretty much looking at each patch and only
> comments on a small fraction. We also really don't want it to comment on
> each and every patch ...
> 
> 
> So it seems we should ask the robot maintainers to just stop suggesting
> those tags?

Agreed.

Thanks,
//richard