From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40CA02FF9 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 13:58:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC3F842D for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 13:58:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 09:58:20 -0400 From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" To: Joel Fernandes Message-ID: <20190828135820.GA24857@mit.edu> References: <20190827134836.GB25038@kroah.com> <20190827153344.GC534@kroah.com> <20190827195351.GA30710@kroah.com> <20190828090837.GA31704@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Cc: Barret Rhoden , ksummit , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jonathan Nieder , Tomasz Figa , Han-Wen Nienhuys , Theodore Tso , David Rientjes , Dmitry Torokhov , Dmitry Vyukov Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Allowing something Change-Id (or something like it) in kernel commits List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 08:38:33AM -0400, Joel Fernandes via Ksummit-discuss wrote: > The idea is to make it trivial. All of the steps above are automatic > and scripted, that's the whole point of what I was saying - to make it > automatic. If it is not automated, then it is unlikely to be adopted > widely or unlikely to stick. The final user will experience it as > trivial. I'm going to gently suggest that we've reached the point where instead of people trying to argue for their suggested solution is to actually *implement* a prototype. It'll be a lot easier for people to judge a particular solution if it exists, than to debate about vaporware. Code implementing automation can always be adjusted, and questions over whether the Link: trailer should be using lkml.kernel.org or lore.kernel.org is really paint shedding. Also remember that, different people can start using different automations, and even different schemes, in parallel, and we can actually try them out and see which is: * most convenient for the patch submmiter * most convenient for the maintainer * most convenient for people who are doing code archeology etc. Then we can decide on what we want to use. Trying to pick something before people who actually have to use it day to day have had a chance to try it in real life is how CIO's end up picking Lotus Notes. Even people who are arguing for using Change-Id will have better luck if there is a commonly available solution in active use which makes Change-Id's actually *useful* as a search token, as opposed to today, where it is viewed (in practical terms, given today's usage, mostly correctly) as a proxy for Gerrit instances hidden behind corporate firewalls. - Ted