From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS54825 145.40.73.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sin.source.kernel.org (sin.source.kernel.org [145.40.73.55]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E63DC1F4BE for ; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 14:27:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=k20201202 header.b=fwlUZcgO; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EC2CCE0C0B; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 14:27:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCE55C116B1; Mon, 29 Apr 2024 14:27:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1714400847; bh=t+icPM1sViMXtjUYUUlsZstD0bTk4xGQr1Fsw27gD20=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fwlUZcgOJafqKoDUStWy6NyQjkn1Tn3Zv4wDee+56gQKt+bCaElW9zY9mnc1FnCmT remALkUXOHf9cLA3+4AlLJh2UFq5BXCPjsr4aZr9gLTRbqzrIFlwyTwm87/b26JZbp AJCSvJsd8gztJupSP1huosGmCMCojWQzTCDOYr24T3ZvhkmFdADWOUJbzDnYvWZoPc WdhFk7DiDqVeAPCnBJRjPrMdI4268s8SrkksYJaGSJKjmjzr6h9TxyPDmwjEXVSxDj 1bPWodjsTr0uiP12F+Su1l49VygXoXl9jE0CiEfZ6qxbNvyyKt2pDFKxAAaZIHQ1Wc +MAlosxJVo/iw== Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 10:27:25 -0400 From: Konstantin Ryabitsev To: Eric Wong Cc: "Jason A. Donenfeld" , tools@linux.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org, meta@public-inbox.org, sashal@kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, krzk@kernel.org Subject: Re: filtering stable patches in lore queries Message-ID: <20240429-antique-hyena-of-glee-d9e4ac@lemur> References: <20240427071921.M438650@dcvr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240427071921.M438650@dcvr> List-Id: On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 07:19:21AM GMT, Eric Wong wrote: > Correct, public-inbox currently won't index every header due to > cost, false positives, and otherwise lack of usefulness (general > gibberish from DKIM sigs, various UUIDs, etc). > > So it doesn't currently know about "X-stable:" > > I started working on making headers indexing configurable last > year, but didn't hear a response from the person that > potentially was interested: > > https://public-inbox.org/meta/20231120032132.M610564@dcvr/ > > Right now, indexing new headers + validations can be maintained > as a Perl module in the public-inbox codebase. > > For lore, it'd make sense to be able to configure a bunch (or > all) inboxes at once instead of the per-inbox configuration in > my proposed RFC. > > At minimum, one would have to know: > > 1) the mail header name (e.g. `X-stable') > 2) the search prefix to use (e.g. `xstable:') # can't use dash `-' AFAIK > 3) the type of header value (phrase, string, sortable numeric, etc...) I'm whole-heartedly for this! This ties nicely to my b4 work where I'd like to be able to identify code-review trailers sent for a specific patch, even if that patch itself is not on lore. For example, this could be a patch that is part of a pull-request on a git forge, but we'd still like to be able to collect and find code-review trailers for it when a maintainer applies it. Currently, I am using the following approach: | Reviewed-by: Some Developer | --- | for-patch-id: abcd...1234 Then I can query 'nq:"for-patch-id: abcd...1234"', but this is probably much more heavy than if I could provide this in a custom header: | X-For-Patch-ID: abcd...1234 and query for "xforpatchid:abcd...1234" > I'm trying to avoid supporting sortable numeric values for this, > since supporting them will problems if columns get repurposed > with admins changing their minds. A full reindex would fix it, > but those are crazy expensive. I'm perfectly fine with it only being a string, honestly. > > So probably just supporting strings and/or phrases to start... > > Validation to prevent poisoning by malicious/broken senders can > be useful in some cases (and the reason the RFC was a per use > case Perl module). That said, I'm not sure if much validation > is necessary for X-stable: headers or if just any text is fine. I'd let the consumer clients worry about it. -K