Re: Full subsystem codebase scan for identifying pre-existing issues?
Andrew Morton <[email protected]> Wed, 29 Jul 2026 19:01:58 -0700
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.sashiko |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 21:43:26 -0400 Derek Barbosa <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > Currently, they're flagged on patch reviews, which can be > > a bit frustrating for contributors who didn't introduce the problem, > > and adds a bit of noise for maintainers/reviewers looking at the > > Sashiko report. > > Unfortunately, you aren't the first to report a problem with these. > > Currently, in the 11th stage instruction in the code, pre-existing issues are > propagated in the report like so: > > <snip> > > CRITICAL RULE: If a finding is flagged as pre-existing (`\"preexisting\": > true`), you MUST explicitly state in your inline comment that this issue is > pre-existing and was not introduced by the patch under review. Use phrasing like > \"This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, but...\" or \"This is a > pre-existing issue, but...\" to start the comment. > > </snip> > > Instead of them replying inline with "This isn't a bug introduced by this patch, > but by..." or "This is a pre-existing issue, but does..." how would you like to > see this information presented/conveyed? > > I created an issue here [2] > > [2] https://github.com/sashiko-dev/sashiko/issues/381 "To a separate section" is OK. I wouldn't want to lose the pre-existing issue reporting. I don't see that an author is obligated to address these things (although they often do). But I like to see that the pre-existing things are brought to the official maintainer's attention. And yes, it's all very disorganized and error-prone. How nice would it be for Maintainer to think "hm, I have a few hours to spare - what bug reports are there against my stuff". Then click on a link.