Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] docs: process: submitting-patches: Clarify the Reported-by usage

[Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 09:51:33AM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 08:16:42PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:47:32PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 05:34:35PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 04:18:30PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 01:44:20PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > I think this misunderstands the problem that Andy is trying to fix.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The situation: I write a patch.  I post it for review.  A bot does
> > > > > > something and finds a bug (could be compile-error, could be boot
> > > > > > problem).  That bot sends a bug report with a suggestion to add
> > > > > > Reported-by:.  That suggestion is inappropriate because the bug never
> > > > > > made it upstream, so it looks like the bot reported the "problem"
> > > > > > that the patch "fixes".
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's not unique to "new feature" patches.  If I'm fixing a bug and
> > > > > > my fix also contains a bug spotted by a bot, adding Reported-by
> > > > > > makes it look like the bot spotted the original bug, rather than
> > > > > > spotting a bug in the fix.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The best thing to do in this case is nothing.  Do not credit the bot.
> > > > > > Maybe add a Checked-by:, but that would be a new trailer and I really
> > > > > > don't think we need a new kind of trailer to get wrong.
> > > > > 
> > > > > It seems like the only way to fix this is to fix the bots. Adding more
> > > > > documentation is unlikely to help in this case.
> > > > 
> > > > Links to the documentation at least may clarify the point in case of a
> > > > review.
> > > 
> > > Sure.
> > > 
> > > > > Can't we file a bug to whoever is running the bots (Intel?) and ask them
> > > > > to remove the suggestion to add a Reported-by when the bot is testing a
> > > > > patch (as opposed to mainline or even -next)?
> > > > 
> > > > The granularity here is not a repo. It's a code itself and in some cases
> > > > it might be easy to distinguish new feature from the code modifications,
> > > > but when code is already there and feature is just an extension of the
> > > > existing file(s), it's hard to tell. And it might be true or not.
> > > 
> > > Not sure I understand what you're saying here. Perhaps you and Matthew
> > > are talking about different things after all.
> > 
> > I'm talking about your suggestion to fix the bots. It's not easy.
> > The problem is the same as Matthew explained.
> 
> Perhaps I'm missing something, but if you re-read Mathews description
> above, it still seems to me like the issue is that the bots are trying
> to claim credit for finding things that haven't been merged yet.
> 
> Your suggestion is to document that the bots should be ignored. My
> suggestion is to fix the bots.

Originally the kbuild bot used to not have that notice but adding it
meant that kbuild bot got a lot more visibility.  The truth is that
managers love metrics and it helps people get paid.

The whole point of kbuild-bot was to search the lists and test code
before it gets merged.  If they just waited and tested linux-next they
would get their reported by tags because most trees don't rebase.  But
we're punishing them for being better at their job.  It's a perverse
incentive.

We should create a new tag for finding bugs during review.

regards,
dan carpenter