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

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 21:59, Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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.
> > +
>
> I really like the idea of defining two additional tags for these
> purposes ("Improved-from-review-feedback/testing-by" and "Cred-to").

I think that the from-review / from-testing might be too verbose. I'd
prefer to keep the existing tag.

As for Cred-to I'm probably missing the usecase that you have in mind.

>
> I do however think that in order to gain acceptance and widespread
> usage, they need to be defined in the same clear fashion as the entires
> under the "Using Reported-by:, Tested-by:, ..." section.

Of course.

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



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry