[PATCH 0/2] docs & checkpatch: allow Closes tags with links

[Matthieu Baerts]

Hi Thorsten, Linus,

@Linus: in short, we would like to continue using the "Closes:" tag (or
similar, see below) with a URL in commit messages. They are useful to
have public bug trackers doing automated actions like closing a specific
ticket. Any objection from your side?

The full thread is visible there:

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-doc/20230314-doc-checkpatch-closes-tag-v1-0-1b83072e9a9a@tessares.net/T/


@Thorsten: thank you for your reply!

On 16/03/2023 10:22, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 15.03.23 18:44, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
>> Since v6.3, checkpatch.pl now complains about the use of "Closes:" tags
>> followed by a link [1]. It also complains if a "Reported-by:" tag is
>> followed by a "Closes:" one [2].
>>
>> As detailed in the first patch, this "Closes:" tag is used for a bit of
>> time, mainly by DRM and MPTCP subsystems. It is used by some bug
>> trackers to automate the closure of issues when a patch is accepted.
>>
>> Because this tag is used for a bit of time by different subsystems and
>> it looks like it makes sense and it is useful for them, I didn't bother
>> Linus to get his permission to continue using it. If you think this is
>> necessary to do that up front, please tell me and I will be happy to ask
>> for his agreement.
> 
> Due to how he reacted to some "invented" tags recently, I'd think it
> would be appropriate to CC him on this patchset, as he then can speak up
> if he wants to (and I assume a few more mails don't bother him).

Sure, just did with a short summary.

>> The first patch updates the documentation to explain what is this
>> "Closes:" tag and how/when to use it. The second patch modifies
>> checkpatch.pl to stop complaining about it.
> 
> I liked Andrew's `have been using "Addresses:" on occasion. [...] more
> humble [...]` comment.  Sadly that tag is not supported by GitLab and
> GitHub. But well, "Resolves" is and also a bit more humble if you ask
> me. How about using that instead? Assuming that Konstantin can work with
> that tag, too, but I guess he can.

I don't mind changing the tag name but I still have a preference to use
'Closes:' simply because it was used ~500 times in the past.

If we want to change, it is probably the best time to do so but for me,
the fact we -- MPTCP subsystem -- use the same tag as the DRM subsystem
(and ClangBuiltLinux and Debian) without consulting each other -- if I'm
not mistaken -- is a sign it is a good tag :)

> I also wonder if the texts for the documentation could be shorter.
> Wouldn't something like this do?
> 
> `Instead of "Link:" feel free to use "Resolves:" with an URL instead, if
> the issue was filed in a public bug tracker that will consider the issue
> resolved when it noticed that tag.`
> 
> [s/Resolves/Closes/ if we stick to that]

Sure, I'm not used to write doc and I appreciate your suggestion to
improve that. I might change one or two words but I have no objection to
write this in the v2 once we agreed on the name of this tag.

Also, should I use the same text in both process/5.Posting.rst and
process/submitting-patches.rst?

> Side note: makes we wonder if we should go "all in" here to avoid
> confusion and allow "Resolves" everywhere, even for links to lore.

Personally, I would recommend that, it might even be useful for other
bots like regzbot: a patch can be linked to one discussion but not
fixing the issue and even fixing another one instead. It might be useful
for a bot to be able to distinguish the two without depending on a not
100% reliable AI ;-)

A concrete example: patch 1/2 of this series is linked to a bug report
[1]. The ticket can be closed only when patch 2/2 will be applied.

Cheers,
Matt

[1] https://github.com/multipath-tcp/mptcp_net-next/issues/373
-- 
Tessares | Belgium | Hybrid Access Solutions
www.tessares.net