[Mesa-dev] [Mesa-stable] [PATCH] radv: Fix driver UUID SHA1 init.

[Bas Nieuwenhuizen]

On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 3:42 PM Emil Velikov <emil.l.velikov at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 21 September 2018 at 17:49, Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> wrote:
> > Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-09-21 09:07:58)
> >> On 21 September 2018 at 16:55, Dylan Baker <dylan at pnwbakers.com> wrote:
> >> > Quoting Emil Velikov (2018-09-21 08:47:30)
> >> >> On 21 September 2018 at 08:19, Juan A. Suarez Romero
> >> >> <jasuarez at igalia.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Thu, 2018-09-20 at 20:16 +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 7:33 PM Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at intel.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Thursday, 2018-09-20 19:17:57 +0200, Bas Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> >> >> >> > > Was missing the init, found by Emil.
> >> >> >> > >
> >> >> >> > > Fixes: d17443a4593 "radv: Use build ID if available for cache UUID."
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Reviewed-by: Eric Engestrom <eric.engestrom at intel.com>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > CC: <mesa-stable at lists.freedesktop.org>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Cc'ing mesa-stable has no effect when you're already adding the
> >> >> >> > proper Fixes: tag :)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Last time I asked about the difference between Fixes and CC, the
> >> >> >> conclusion I got that Fixes is only best effort for the stable
> >> >> >> branches and that if it does not apply it will be dropped silently,
> >> >> >> while for the CC ones the release manager will notify you.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In previous releases that was the way it worked: we always our best effort to
> >> >> > apply CC and Fixes patches. The difference was that if we couldn't apply the
> >> >> > patch, then we were only notifying in the pre-announcement "Rejected" section
> >> >> > about the CC, and silently ignoring the Fixes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But nowadays, we notify about all the candidates to stable, which are CC and
> >> >> > Fixes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Here is an alternative wording, hopefully it will make things clearer:
> >> >>
> >> >> Both CC and Fixes work and having both does not hurt.
> >> >>
> >> >> Fixes provides clear indication when/where the problem originates.
> >> >> Cc _explicitly_ requests the patch to be in stable - that's why we
> >> >> have the list + late nominations.
> >> >>
> >> >> It _explicit_ nomination does _not_ apply then the nominator is informed.
> >> >>
> >> >> -Emil
> >> >
> >> > Yeah, that's not useful. We don't need a "you can put this in if you want but
> >> > don't tell me if you didn't". Either it's nominated or it's not. If Fixes:
> >> > doesn't mean "I want this in any stable branch with commit X" then we should
> >> > stop using the tag.
> >> >
> >> Fixes means "I want this _anywhere_ with commit X". No idea how you
> >> read my comment otherwise ;-)
> >>
> >> -Emil
> >
> > Where you said CC is _explicit_ but fixes isn't. Having two ways to do the same
> > thing that are subtly different seems like a bad idea to me.
> >
> > I'm going to admit this is just another reason that I feel like our whole stable
> > process is rather fragile and tedious. We have three ways to nominate a patch
> > that are all subtly different, but those differences are not clearly documented.
>
> Keep in mind that before I started the documentation was a mere
> fraction of what it is today.
> As I said multiple times if something is unclear - ask _and_ send
> patches to clarify the documentation.
>
> Sadly close to no patches appear :-(

I'm happy to send patches to clarify the documentation once this
discussion is through. However, I'm not sure how to reconcile your
statements though:

"Both CC and Fixes work and having both does not hurt.

Fixes provides clear indication when/where the problem originates.
Cc _explicitly_ requests the patch to be in stable - that's why we
have the list + late nominations.

It _explicit_ nomination does _not_ apply then the nominator is informed."

which seems to say that patches with only "Fixes:" can get rejected
silently. (which would match Juan's old answer in
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/mesa-stable/2018-April/008072.html)

vs.

"As a TL;DR _nothing_ is rejected silently ;-)"

which seems to say that patches with only "Fixes:" can not get
rejected silently. (which matches what Dylan is saying)

While documentation can help prevent future confusion/discussion on
this topic, which way should the documentation go, as these two
statements seem to contradict each other to me.


>
> Our thinking, and hence expressions vary, so I'm more than happy to
> change the docs so that they are better suited for a wider audience.
>
> As a TL;DR _nothing_ is rejected silently ;-)
>
> -Emil
> _______________________________________________
> mesa-dev mailing list
> mesa-dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev