Re: [PATCH] docs: Document the Link: tag formally

[Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk>]

On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 04:02:04PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 03:14:56PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >> On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> > We have a lot of Link: tags in commits these days and they are
> >> > not formally defined in the kernel documentation. Let's put
> >> > a separate paragraph about it in submitting-patches.rst where
> >> > most other tags are defined.
> >> >
> >> > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> >> > Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
> >> > Reported-by: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> >> > ---
> >> >  Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst | 21 ++++++++++++++++----
> >> >  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> >> > index ba5e944c7a63..20ef984aa743 100644
> >> > --- a/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> >> > +++ b/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
> >> > @@ -643,9 +643,22 @@ which stable kernel versions should receive your fix. This is the preferred
> >> >  method for indicating a bug fixed by the patch. See :ref:`describe_changes`
> >> >  for more details.
> >> >  
> >> > +14) Link: tags
> >> > +--------------
> >> > +
> >> > +A Link: attribute can be used to provide a link back to a protocol of a
> >> > +discussion pertaining to the patch. A typical link looks like this:
> >> > +
> >> > +    Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/<message-id>
> >> > +
> >> > +Any HTTP[S] links can be referenced. It is customary for maintainers to add
> >> > +Link: tags to reference discussions on mailing lists, and this can be done
> >> > +automatically with the git tool when applying patches in mailbox format, see
> >> > +:ref:`Documentation/maintainer/configure-git.rst <configure git>`.
> >> 
> >> I'd like to emphasize even more strongly that it is applied by the
> >> maintainer or committer, and should reference the patch that got
> >> applied. And that the patch submitters shouldn't try to add it
> >> themselves. (Which makes you wonder about the placement in
> >> submitting-patches.rst.) IMO other references should use References:
> >> that is already widely used.
> >
> > I'm the maintainer of phylink.  During discussions, I may propose a
> > patch for someone to try.  When successful, I'll send a new email
> > submitting the patch officially to davem as the networking maintainer
> > as an entirely separate thread.
> >
> > Using Link: to the patch that was submitted officially is obviously
> > impossible, but you would want to link to the discussion that resulted
> > in the patch, rather than the official submission - which would
> > generally be the submission plus an "applied" reply.
> 
> If there are N versions of the patch with discussion that eventually
> lead to the final version that was applied, which one of the previous
> patch versions or discussions do you think should be linked to? IMO the
> only one that actually is unambiguous is the patch that got applied. IMO
> only patches that were submitted to a mailing list should be applied.

Even if it's just the patch submission and an "applied" reply.  To me,
that seems to be just noise.

My point with the above scenario is that the discussion that resulted
in the patch being proposed is the relevant discussion that needs to
be linked to the patch - which will include the context about why the
patch was generated and its testing.  The official submission will
contain none of that.

I guess what this is highlighting is that different people have
different ways of working, and trying to force one thing (Link:) to
be used with one way of working doesn't scale across the whole kernel.

So, stating that Link: should only be added by a maintainer or
committer will have a detrimental effect on workflows that do not
match the one you have in mind.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up