From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7B94C7EE29 for ; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 08:35:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234125AbjFGIf0 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jun 2023 04:35:26 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:41552 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S239730AbjFGIfM (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jun 2023 04:35:12 -0400 Received: from lithops.sigma-star.at (lithops.sigma-star.at [195.201.40.130]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B1CC10F2; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 01:34:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lithops.sigma-star.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id B08AD608110F; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 10:34:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lithops.sigma-star.at ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lithops.sigma-star.at [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id sXaARXfzj_XF; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 10:34:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lithops.sigma-star.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46A9F61A7038; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 10:34:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lithops.sigma-star.at ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (lithops.sigma-star.at [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id REw2yvknD0Qh; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 10:34:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lithops.sigma-star.at (lithops.sigma-star.at [195.201.40.130]) by lithops.sigma-star.at (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD10608110F; Wed, 7 Jun 2023 10:34:55 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 10:34:55 +0200 (CEST) From: Richard Weinberger To: Johannes Berg Cc: Eric Biggers , Azeem Shaikh , Maxim Krasnyansky , anton ivanov , linux-hardening , linux-kernel , linux-um , "Jason A. Donenfeld" , kernel test robot Message-ID: <2092891129.3692555.1686126895090.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> In-Reply-To: <57443d420183b7a0bcab8041c2dfe3ba44e054f4.camel@sipsolutions.net> References: <20230606182410.3976487-1-azeemshaikh38@gmail.com> <1833651082.3690424.1686084717406.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> <20230607042340.GA941@sol.localdomain> <57443d420183b7a0bcab8041c2dfe3ba44e054f4.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: Reported-by/Closes tag for uncommitted issues (was: Re: [PATCH v2] uml: Replace strlcpy with strscpy) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Originating-IP: [195.201.40.130] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.12_GA_3807 (ZimbraWebClient - FF97 (Linux)/8.8.12_GA_3809) Thread-Topic: Reported-by/Closes tag for uncommitted issues (was: Re: [PATCH v2] uml: Replace strlcpy with strscpy) Thread-Index: htCR070T9Bo9GMJdBdeq8ENX7eWHXA== Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-hardening@vger.kernel.org ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > Von: "Johannes Berg" > On Tue, 2023-06-06 at 21:23 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: >> >> > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot >> > > > Closes: >> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202305311135.zGMT1gYR-lkp@intel.com/ >> > > >> > > Are you sure Reported-by and Closes make sense? >> > > AFAIK the report was only on your first patch and nothing against upstream. >> > > So stating this in the updated patch is in vain. >> > >> > I left the metadata in only for the sake of posterity. If it's not >> > helpful, I'm ok with removing it. >> > >> >> IMO using Reported-by in cases like this is harmful, as it makes commits seem >> like bug fixes when they are not. > > I've yet to see anyone disagree with that, and yet, the robot actively > asks for such tags to be included in patch resubmissions. > > On the one hand, I can understand their desire to be recognised for > their efforts. At this point then we might suggest that we introduce a > different tag, say "Improved-by:" or "Issues-found-by:" or something. Robots don't have feelings. No need to worry. ;-) > On the other hand, I don't feel like we should give a robot more > recognition than we give _people_ reviewing, and we currently really > only recognise them by a Reviewed-by tag. Then again, that doesn't work > with the robot - it is pretty much looking at each patch and only > comments on a small fraction. We also really don't want it to comment on > each and every patch ... > > > So it seems we should ask the robot maintainers to just stop suggesting > those tags? Agreed. Thanks, //richard