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 5B3F8B9E for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 22:54:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1E1E87C for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 22:54:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2019 01:53:38 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Leon Romanovsky Message-ID: <20190703225338.GQ5007@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <37eb32f3-f341-b1d8-293b-c119ae278b4f@linuxfoundation.org> <1562082713.3321.38.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <201907020926.FB19EDEBCC@keescook> <1562103238.3321.66.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1562106408.29304.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20190702224347.GJ3032@mit.edu> <20190703085620.GA5007@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <20190703123954.GD4727@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190703123954.GD4727@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> Cc: James Bottomley , ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Patch version changes in commit logs? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello, On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 03:39:54PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 11:12:11AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 06:43:47PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 03:26:48PM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: > > > > > git is our upstream for version control and our upstream has already > > > > > had this as a feature since 2014. Trying to go to upstream 5 years > > > > > later and ask them to change it is likely going to be a singularly > > > > > unsuccessful exercise, plus even in the unlikely event we can work out > > > > > how to do it compatibly and without causing confusion and upstream said > > > > > yes it would take another few years to propagate. > > > > > > > > If we really want to use the Link: header, we should be able to do > > > > this without requiring any changes to git. > > > > > > > > Step 1) git config am.messageid true > > > > Step 2) Write and install a .git/hooks/applypatch-msg script which > > > > looks for Message-Id: and transmogrifies that line to a > > > > Link: trailer, using the lore.kernel.org URL template > > > > Step 3) Document this in Documentation/process. For bonus points > > > > create a script which automatically sets up the user's git > > > > configuration by setting up am.messageid config and > > > > installing the hook file. > > > > Step 4) Profit > > > > > > I may have missed the obvious, but while this should work great for > > > patches applied with git-am, what's the expected workflow for patches > > > written by the author of a pull request ? I certainly post my own > > > patches for review on mailing lists, but I don't fetch them back from > > > the list before sending a pull request. Do we want to move towards a > > > model where maintainers should retrieve their own patches from the lists > > > (or from patchwork) ? > > > > Yes. > > > > If you just commit, post and then send a pull request later how are you > > dealing with Reviewed-by/Acked-by/Tested-by replies on the list? > > > > Either they do not end up in the changelogs or you have to redo the commits > > anyway. So moving to a always redo from mail/patchwork just unifies the > > workflow. > > > > I'm doing that always because I'm way too lazy to collect the tags from > > replies manually. I just save the whole thread as mbox and let the tools > > sort it out. I usually pick the tags manually. I started doing so because I was too lazy to apply the patches from an mbox :-) Picking them manually distributes of time the workload of a final git-am before sending the pull request, but it has the nice advantage that I can easily see in my local tree which patches still require review. > My 2 cents, > > I'm doing the same for slightly different reason, I want to be 100% sure > that posted and reviewed patch equal to applied. So when it is applicable, > I post my own patches and apply them from mailing list later on to > shared rdma<->netdev branch. I understand both your and Thomas' rationales, and I know that the DRM subsystem has enforced usage of the Link: tag through the dim tool used to maintain drm-misc. I initially found it a bit of a burden to have to go and retrieve patches from my mail client or from patchwork, but I also understand the upside. Should we make it an official recommendation recorded in written documentation ? When time permit I will likely try to see if I can automate retrieval of a patch series. Ideally I'd like a script that would take a branch, identifies where to get the patches from, and goes and pick them up (retaining the history below --- until it's time for the final pull request). That may not be too difficult to achieve. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart