Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Allowing something Change-Id (or something like it) in kernel commits

From: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
	Barret Rhoden <brho@google.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@chromium.org>,
	ksummit <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Jonathan Nieder <jrn@google.com>,
	Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>,
	Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@google.com>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@google.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Allowing something Change-Id (or something like it) in kernel commits
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:31:00 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOw6vb+1LH8t20S_3kC6xyGZAhrDa3Pe4ZptsJqoQzXf3WCOeg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190823151843.GH8130@mit.edu>

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:18 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 09:15:30AM -0400, Sean Paul wrote:
> > Only if you've uploaded the patch somewhere before sending it to the
> > mailing list. I think this would satisfy the Gerrit crowd, since
> > they're presumably uploading the patch to Gerrit, getting some review
> > on it and then sending it upstream. They will have a link. If you're
> > just interested in being archival tool friendly, you probably just
> > want to add some uuid cookie to the patch and post it directly to the
> > mailing list.
>
> And this is why I think something like one of the two:
>
> Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/c/1158
> Link: https://linux-review.googlesource.com/q/I3268f9036512c4378cde1da37e0612b43ed4d384
>
> ... is a better choice.
>

Agreed. If you have a url for the patch this makes sense.

I don't upload my patches to Gerrit, but I am interested in enabling
patchwork (or equivalent tool) to do a better job of tracking revision
changes.

Currently I just link to all past revisions in the latest one (see
[1]) so folks can see the prior discussion. It'd be nice if there was
an easier way of achieving this.

Sean

[1]- https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=1452c25b0e60278820f3d2155c65f1bfcce5ee79

> The Link tag, unlike the Change-Id: hidden amongst the diffstat,
> allows any patch review comments which are made via Gerrit to be
> accessible to the public.  The main reason why I suggested the first
> as opposed to the second initially is that one of the pushbacks
> against the "Change-Id: " header was that the
> "I3268f9036512c4378cde1da37e0612b43ed4d384" portion was ugly.
>
> Yes, that's purely an aesthetics argument, but in terms of human
> emotional acceptance, that's important.  The first is arguably better
> than:
>
> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=200847
>
> ... which people are already willing to accept.
>
> There are some advantages to the second, in that we don't have to
> contact Gerrit to assign the small integer number.  Either way,
> though, it should easy to teach Gerrit how to interpret either instead
> of the "Change-Id:" tag, and for publically accessible Gerrit
> instances, the Link: tag is strictly superior.  It allows you to know
> which Gerrit server to contact to find the review history, and it
> becomes obvious whether that Gerrit server is publicaly accessible, or
> if it is hidden behind a corporate firewall.
>
> Cheers,
>
>                                         - Ted