Reported-by/Closes tag for uncommitted issues (was: Re: [PATCH v2] uml: Replace strlcpy with strscpy)

[Johannes Berg]

On Tue, 2023-06-06 at 21:23 -0700, Eric Biggers wrote:
> 
> > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Closes:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202305311135.zGMT1gYR-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > 
> > > Are you sure Reported-by and Closes make sense?
> > > AFAIK the report was only on your first patch and nothing against upstream.
> > > So stating this in the updated patch is in vain.
> > 
> > I left the metadata in only for the sake of posterity. If it's not
> > helpful, I'm ok with removing it.
> > 
> 
> IMO using Reported-by in cases like this is harmful, as it makes commits seem
> like bug fixes when they are not.

I've yet to see anyone disagree with that, and yet, the robot actively
asks for such tags to be included in patch resubmissions.

On the one hand, I can understand their desire to be recognised for
their efforts. At this point then we might suggest that we introduce a
different tag, say "Improved-by:" or "Issues-found-by:" or something.

On the other hand, I don't feel like we should give a robot more
recognition than we give _people_ reviewing, and we currently really
only recognise them by a Reviewed-by tag. Then again, that doesn't work
with the robot - it is pretty much looking at each patch and only
comments on a small fraction. We also really don't want it to comment on
each and every patch ...


So it seems we should ask the robot maintainers to just stop suggesting
those tags?

johannes