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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A32C43387 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 11:35:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52444206C2 for ; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 11:35:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2389880AbfAPLfZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:35:25 -0500 Received: from cloudserver094114.home.pl ([79.96.170.134]:54133 "EHLO cloudserver094114.home.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730420AbfAPLfZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Jan 2019 06:35:25 -0500 Received: from 79.184.255.239.ipv4.supernova.orange.pl (79.184.255.239) (HELO aspire.rjw.lan) by serwer1319399.home.pl (79.96.170.134) with SMTP (IdeaSmtpServer 0.83.183) id a16cbd9eab5cd01e; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:35:21 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Michael Ellerman Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Sinan Kaya , Paul Gortmaker Subject: Re: linux-next: Fixes tags need some work in the pm tree Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 12:34:29 +0100 Message-ID: <24595936.XVKUtQNKnv@aspire.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <877ef5zduk.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> References: <20190116075540.78cff44e@canb.auug.org.au> <8346227.VjU8HeZdOJ@aspire.rjw.lan> <877ef5zduk.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 12:43:31 AM CET Michael Ellerman wrote: > "Rafael J. Wysocki" 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" 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