Re: [PATCH 2/2] docs: handling-regressions.rst: clarify that "Closes:" tags work too

[Randy Dunlap]

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