Re: [PATCH 0/2] docs & checkpatch: allow Closes tags with links

Daniel Vetter
2023-03-17T16:59:15Z

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 at 18:30, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 4:43 AM Matthieu Baerts
> <matthieu.baerts@tessares.net> wrote:
> >
> > @Linus: in short, we would like to continue using the "Closes:" tag (or
> > similar, see below) with a URL in commit messages. They are useful to
> > have public bug trackers doing automated actions like closing a specific
> > ticket. Any objection from your side?
>
> As long as it's a public link, I guess that just documents what the
> drm people have been doing.
>
> I'm not convinced "Closes" is actually any better than just "Link:",
> though. I would very much hope and expect that the actual closing of
> any bug report is actually done separately and verified, rather than
> some kind of automated "well, the commit says it closes it, so.."
>
> So honestly, I feel like "Link:" is just a better thing, and I worry
> that "Closes:" is then going to be used for random internal crap.
> We've very much seen people wanting to do that - having their own
> private bug trackers, and then using the commit message to refer to
> them, which I am *violently* against. If it's only useful to some
> closed community, it shouldn't be in the public commits.

Yeah I think that's fine. The bot can then autogenerate a request in
the bug report to confirm that it's fixed, and ask the reporter to
close in that case. And then maybe if there's no message a few weeks
after the release, auto-close or something.

Bot needs to make sure it's only parsing tags for the instance it's
botting for anyway, so overloading Link: with all the meanings
(absolutely all themeanings!) is not really a problem since Closes:
has the same issue if different subsystems use it for different bug
tracking needs.

> And while the current GPU people seem to use "Closes:" the right way
> (and maybe some other groups do too - but it does seem to be mostly a
> freedesktop thing), I really think it is amenable to mis-use in ways
> "Link:" is not.

Huh I didn't realize this picked up. Way back we used Bugzilla: for
this sometimes, but I think just using Link: for everything and
letting instance-specific bots figure out whether it's relevant for
them should be perfectly fine. Humans should have no problem parsing
meaning out of a tag soup anyway (I mean we have Cc: stable meaning
backport after all, and I think that address is a blackhole).

I guess if you feel strongly we can percolate this a bit to
submaintainers and contributors in drm.
-Daniel

> The point of "Link:" is explicitly two-fold:
>
> - it makes it quite obvious that you expect an actual valid web-link,
> not some internal garbage
>
> - random people always want random extensions, and "Link:" is
> _designed_ to counter-act that creeping "let's add a random new tag"
> disease. It's very explicitly "any relevant link".
>
> and I really question the value of adding new types of tags,
> particularly ones that seem almost designed to be mis-used.
>
> So I'm not violently against it, and 99% of the existing uses seem
> fine. But I do note that some of the early "Closes:" tags in the
> kernel were very much complete garbage, and exactly the kind of thing
> that I absolutely detest.
>
> What does
>
> Closes: 10437
>
> mean? That's crazy talk. (And yes, in that case it was a
> kernel.bugzilla.org number, which is perfectly fine, but I'm using it
> as a very real example of how "Closes:" ends up being very naturally
> to mis-use).
>
> End result: I don't hate our current "Closes:" uses. But I'm very wary of it.
>
> I'm not at all convinced that it really adds a lot of value over
> "Link:", and I am, _very_ aware of how easily it can be then taken to
> be a "let's use our own bug tracker cookies here".
>
> So I will neither endorse nor condemn it, but if I see people using it
> wrong, I will absolutely put my foot down.
>
> Linus

--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation