Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Signing off patches

[W. Trevor King]

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 02:33:06AM +0100, Tom Wijsman wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:24:59 -0800
> "W. Trevor King" <wking@×××××××.us> wrote:
> > If it doesn't need to get updated, then it probably already
> > started out explaining the consensus ;).
>
> That is a guess, you can look this up in past patches.

Sure.  Will you?  If I want to touch some code, and it looks
confusing, I'll use blame to see who wrote it and whay they were
thinking about.  If the commit message is not informative, I usually
give up.  I have a hard time imaging folks tracking down the thread
that spawned that patch, assuming such a thread even exists, for each
troublesome line they'd like to touch.  It's much easier to summarize
any issues the list resolved (because they're likely the same
questions the new dev is asking) in the commit message, where future
developers can find them.

> > You spend time if you want to spend time and add whoever you feel
> > moved to add.
>
> We discuss whether to make it policy to add involved people.

But “involved” can be hard to pin down, especially by someone who may
be applying v5 of a patch that hasn't been carefully following the
whole discussion in earlier versions.  The Linux kernel docs say [1]:

  If this patch fixes a problem reported by somebody else, consider
  adding a Reported-by: tag to credit the reporter for their
  contribution.

Note the “consider” wiggle word.  They are a bit more formal about
Reviewed-by, but only because it's signing off on their Reviewer's
statement of oversight.  In general, if you're not signing some
statement with the tag, formalizing “involved” is hard.

> > If you are submitting v2 of a patch, and feel a desire
> > to credit reviewers / testers with this syntax, I think that's
> > considerate of you. If you are committing someone else's patch to
> > master, and want to record the folks who acked it on the list to
> > distribute responsibility, that's fine too. If you want to use
> > another syntax, or not do any of this at all, it's still fine by me
> > ;). However, if a consistent syntax already exists, I see no reason
> > not to use it when it suits your purpose.
>
> We discuss here whether to make it policy to use the same syntax.

I don't understand the distinction between “here are some guidelines,
apply as and if you see fit” and “make it a policy to …”.  Say you
have a situation like this:

  1. Alice submits a bug-report to bugs.g.o.
  2. Bob codes up a Portage patch and sends it to the list.
  3. Charlie responds to Bob's patch on the list with "Reviewed-by".
  4. Dan responds to Bob's patch on the list with "Reviewed-by", and
     asks for any opposition.

     … time passes, and nobody speaks up …

  5. Dan applies Bob's patch to the master branch, but neglects:

       Submitted-by: Alice <a@×××××××.net>
       Reviewed-by: Charlie <c@×××××××.net>
       Reviewed-by: Dan <d@×××××××.net>

  6. ?

As I understand it, 6 should be:

  6a. Everyone gets on with their lives.

I could see a situation where:

  6b. Charlie reminds Dan that he could have used the tags.  Everyone
      gets on with their lives.

Is there another alternative step 6 implied by the “policy” keyword?
Or is the policy workflow even more different somehow?

Cheers,
Trevor

[1]: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches

-- 
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org).
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy