From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki•net>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman•id.au>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger•kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org>,
Sinan Kaya <okaya@kernel•org>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver•com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Fixes tags need some work in the pm tree
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:34:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <24595936.XVKUtQNKnv@aspire.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <877ef5zduk.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 12:43:31 AM CET Michael Ellerman wrote:
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki•net> writes:
> > On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 11:43:05 PM CET Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> Hi Rafael,
> >>
> >> On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 23:13:16 +0100 "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki•net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:55:40 PM CET Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >> > > [I am experimenting with checking the Fixes tags in commits in linux-next.
> >> > > Please let me know if you think I am being too strict.]
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi Rafael,
> >> > >
> >> > > Commits
> >> > >
> >> > > 62b33d57c534 ("drivers: thermal: int340x_thermal: Make PCI dependency explicit")
> >> > > cd793ab22a93 ("x86/intel/lpss: Make PCI dependency explicit")
> >> > > 42ac19e7b81e ("ACPI: EC: Look for ECDT EC after calling acpi_load_tables()")
> >> > > 6c29b81b5695 ("platform/x86: apple-gmux: Make PCI dependency explicit")
> >> > > 34783dc0182a ("platform/x86: intel_pmc: Make PCI dependency explicit")
> >> > > 704658d1d3ae ("platform/x86: intel_ips: make PCI dependency explicit")
> >> > > 5df37f3a1aa9 ("vga-switcheroo: make PCI dependency explicit")
> >> > > da1df6ee4296 ("ata: pata_acpi: Make PCI dependency explicit")
> >> > > ce97a22a596b ("ACPI / LPSS: Make PCI dependency explicit")
> >> > >
> >> > > Have malformed Fixes tags:
> >> > >
> >> > > There should be double quotes around the commit subject.
> >> >
> >> > Well, where does this requirement come from?
> >> >
> >> > It hasn't been there before AFAICS.
> >>
> >> Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst has the following, but I
> >> am sure people are happy to discuss changes and it does say "For
> >> example", so maybe I am being to strict?
> >
> > If that's the source of it, then it's rather weak IMO.
> >
> > Formal requirements should be documented as such and I would expect that
> > to happen through the usual process: patch submission, review, acceptance etc.
>
> It is documented, in submitting-patches.rst.
>
> That was submitted to lkml:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1396949135-27122-1-git-send-email-jeffrey.t.kirsher@intel.com/
>
> And committed by Linus:
>
> 8401aa1f5997 ("Documentation/SubmittingPatches: describe the Fixes: tag")
Stephen has already quoted from that doc, but it only gives the format of the
summary line as an example.
> How would we make it more formal than that?
Say somewhere that this particular summary formatting is required?
Also, tags are more of a maintainers' thing and SubmittingPatches doesn't look
like the best place for documenting how the maintainers are expected to format
their commits.
> > Moreover, extending advice on to how submit paches to formatting requirements
> > for commits feels like a bit of a stretch to me.
> >
> >> The counter argument is that
> >> there are various (semi-)automated processes that use these tags and
> >> being consistent probably makes those processes (and life for those who
> >> run them) easier.
> >
> > And frankly I wouldn't expect any of these to even look at the summary
> > lines as they have not been consistent historically and the SHA-1 ID should
> > be sufficient to identify the commit in question.
>
> It usually is, but it's still a good sanity check to have the subject in
> there, especially for cases where the SHA is wrong (though that should
> be less of a problem in future due to Stephen doing these checks).
A human can look at the summary after a script has not found the commit by
ID, but the human then doesn't care about the quoting characters.
Also it is rather straightforward to strip the quoting characters in a script
whatever they are.
My point basically is that in order to call something "malformed", you need
to provide a formal definition of what is expected. An example in
SubmittingPatches doesn't seem quite sufficient to me for that role.
Cheers,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-16 11:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-15 20:55 linux-next: Fixes tags need some work in the pm tree Stephen Rothwell
2019-01-15 21:10 ` Sinan Kaya
2019-01-15 22:44 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-01-15 22:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-01-15 22:43 ` Stephen Rothwell
2019-01-15 23:06 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2019-01-15 23:43 ` Michael Ellerman
2019-01-16 11:34 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2019-01-16 0:22 ` Paul Gortmaker
2019-01-16 11:50 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=24595936.XVKUtQNKnv@aspire.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki$(echo .)net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=linux-next@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman$(echo .)id.au \
--cc=okaya@kernel$(echo .)org \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver$(echo .)com \
--cc=sfr@canb$(echo .)auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox