On Wed, 2020-12-09 at 10:58 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 09:01:49PM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Tue, 2020-12-08 at 16:34 -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > > > > > If not "Adjusted-by", what about "Tweaked-by", "Helped-by", > > > "Corrected-by"? > > > > Improved-by: / Enhanced-by: / Revisions-by: > > > > I don't think we should give any credit for improvements or enhancements, > only for fixes.
Hey Dan. I do. If a patch isn't comprehensive and a reviewer notices some missing coverage or algorithmic performance enhancement, I think that should be noted. > Complaining about style is its own reward. <chuckle, maybe so. I view it more like coaching...> I believe I've said multiple times that style changes shouldn't require additional commentary added to a patch. I'm not making any suggestion to comment for style, only logic or defect reduction/improvements as described above. > Having to redo a patch is already a huge headache. Normally, I already > considered the reviewer's prefered style and decided I didn't like it. Example please. We both seem to prefer consistent style. > Then to make me redo the patch in an ugly style and say thank you on > top of that??? Forget about it. Not a thing I've asked for. > Plus, as a reviewer I hate reviewing patches over and over. interdiff could be improved. > I've argued for years that we should have a Fixes-from: tag. The zero > day bot is already encouraging people to add Reported-by tags for this > and a lot of people do. It's still a question of what fixes means in any context. https://www.google.com/search?q=%27fixes-from%3A%27%20carpenter%20site%3Alore.kernel.org gives: It looks like there aren't many great matches for your search And I'm rather in favor of letting people make up their own <whatever>-by: uses and not being too concerned about the specific whatever word or phrase used. Postel's law and such.