lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: Fixes tags need some work in the pm tree
Date
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.

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-16 00:08    [W:0.071 / U:12.200 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site