On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 01:19:53PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Plus this adds some cognitive load on those writing these patches, which increases the global effort. It's already difficult enough to figure the appropriate Cc list when writing a fix, let's not add more burden in this chain.
...
I'm also defending this on other projects. I find it important that efforts are reasonably shared. If tolerating 1% failures saves 20% effort on authors and adds 2% work on recipients, that's a net global win. You never completely eliminate mistakes anyway, regardless of the cost.
The only way I can see to square the circle would be if there was some kind of script that added enough value that people naturally use it because it saves *them* time, and it automatically inserts the right commit metadata in some kind of standardized way.
I've been starting to use b4, and that's a great example of a workflow that saves me time, and standardizes things as a very nice side effect. So perhaps the question is there some kind of automation that saves 10-20% effort for authors *and* improves the quality of the patch metadata for those that choose to use the script?
- Ted