Re: [PATCH 1/7] xz: add fall-through comments to a switch statement

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 07.12.2021 10:59, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 07/12/2021 09:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 06.12.2021 17:21, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> I still have have no way to verify
>>> what you did is correct.
>>>
>>> For instance, the tags in patch #2 are:
>>>
>>> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191104185107.3b6330df@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Reported-by: Yu Sun <yusun2@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lasse Collin <lasse.collin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Acked-by: Daniel Walker <danielwa@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> [Linux commit: 8e20ba2e53fc6198cbfbcc700e9f884157052a8d]
>>>
>>> The tags in the Linux commit are:
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lasse Collin <lasse.collin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reported-by: Yu Sun <yusun2@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Acked-by: Daniel Walker <danielwa@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: "Yixia Si (yisi)" <yisi@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> * The first two matches the original e-mails
>>> * I couldn't find the 3rd on the ML.
>>
>> See e.g.
>>
>> https://yhbt.net/lore/all/20191108202754.GG18744@zorba/t/
>>
>> (Andrew Morton's reply at the bottom) for where it originates.
> 
> Ok... So this is taken from a different aggregator. I will have to brush 
> by search engine skill then.

To be fair, I went hunting for it only when writing the earlier reply.

>>> * The Cc could be ignored
>>> * The signed-off-by are I guess what you call "mechanical"
>>
>> I would generally retain Reviewed-by when our code is still quite
>> similar to Linux'es. Acked-by are on the edge of being useful, but as
>> you can see I did err on the side of keeping it. As said in a number
>> of places elsewhere, for what I call mechanically added tags I am yet
>> to be told of their value (or even need) in our tree.
> 
> I think the question is how difficult to do you want to make to the 
> other reviewers? I appreciate other (including myself) may have ignored 
> the tags in the past. But now that I know you do it as a manual process, 
> it makes me a lot more nervous to simply ack such patch without any check.
> 
> You seem to be unwilling to simply copy/paste them.

I'm unwilling only as long as I don't understand the need for them. As
indicated, while I appreciate your "make verification easier for
reviewers", I assign that at least no higher priority than my desire
to leave out inapplicable data.

> So for this series, would you be happy if someone else do it for you?

I'd be happy for anyone else to start over. I would even ack such a
submission myself. But as long as I'm recorded with S-o-b, I'm afraid
I'm not going to accept re-addition of the tags for no good (as per my
personal view) reason. Otherwise, based on experience, the example of
this series could, in the future, be used to tell me that on an earlier
occasion I (seemingly) did things differently.

As said earlier, if submissions in this form are going to be nak-ed
going forward, and if good reasons (see above) will not be provided
(and hence leeway will not be granted to the submitter) to support this,
then someone else will need to start looking after imports which may be
relevant to us.

Jan