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,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 3B0D6C43387 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 23:08:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1334C20866 for ; Tue, 15 Jan 2019 23:08:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2391355AbfAOXID (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:08:03 -0500 Received: from cloudserver094114.home.pl ([79.96.170.134]:50558 "EHLO cloudserver094114.home.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2391297AbfAOXHy (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Jan 2019 18:07:54 -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 f8ead82afe91a3c5; Wed, 16 Jan 2019 00:07:51 +0100 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: 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 00:06:59 +0100 Message-ID: <8346227.VjU8HeZdOJ@aspire.rjw.lan> In-Reply-To: <20190116094305.0f66356a@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20190116075540.78cff44e@canb.auug.org.au> <2774660.l3LIlnjlhl@aspire.rjw.lan> <20190116094305.0f66356a@canb.auug.org.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 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. 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. Anyway, I'm not against formalizing the Fixes: tags, but I would rather expect that to be done in a, well, more formal way. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using > ``git bisect``, please use the 'Fixes:' tag with the first 12 characters of > the SHA-1 ID, and the one line summary. For example:: > > Fixes: e21d2170f366 ("video: remove unnecessary platform_set_drvdata()") > > The following ``git config`` settings can be used to add a pretty format for > outputting the above style in the ``git log`` or ``git show`` commands:: > > [core] > abbrev = 12 > [pretty] > fixes = Fixes: %h (\"%s\") > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cheers, Rafael