Re: [PATCH] docs: submitting-patches: describe additional tags

[Nikita Travkin]

On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 08:17:03AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> Described tags do not fully cover development needs. For example the LKP
> robot insists on using Reported-by: tag, but that's not fully correct.
> The robot reports an issue with the patch, not the issue that is being
> fixed by the patch. Describe additional tags to be used while submitting
> patches.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> index 66029999b587..3a24d90fa385 100644
> --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> @@ -544,6 +544,25 @@ future patches, and ensures credit for the testers.
>  Reviewed-by:, instead, indicates that the patch has been reviewed and found
>  acceptable according to the Reviewer's Statement:
>  
> +Additional tags to be used while submitting patches
> +---------------------------------------------------
> +
> +The tags described previously do not always cover the needs of the development
> +process.
> +
> +For example, if the kernel test robot reports an issue in the patch, the robot
> +insists that the next version of the patch gets the Reported-by: and Closes:
> +tags.  While the Closes: tag can be considered correct in such a case, the
> +Reported-by: tag is definitely not correct. The LKP robot hasn't reported the
> +issue that is being fixed by the patch, but instead it has reported an issue
> +with the patch. To be more precise you may use the Improved-thanks-to: tag for
> +the next version of the patch.
> +
> +Another frequent case is when you want to express gratitude to the colleagues,
> +who helped to improve the patch, but neither the Co-developed-by: nor
> +Suggested-by: tags are appropriate. In such case you might prefer to use
> +Discussed-with:, Listened-by:, or Discussed-over-a-beer-with: tags.
> +

This is an amazing idea!

Though I wonder if we should use the industry standard X- prefix for those:
i.e. X-Code-generator: or X-Sent-some-messages-about-this-that-were-left-unread-to:
to clarify they are extensions to the usual workflow.

I think the decision on this would be pretty obvious after reading the
current recommendation for X- prefixes in RFC 6648.

I like this change!
Nikita

>  Reviewer's statement of oversight
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>  
> 
> ---
> base-commit: 13ee4a7161b6fd938aef6688ff43b163f6d83e37
> change-id: 20240401-additional-trailers-2b764f3e4aee
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>