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 8B4B61D0A for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:49:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21D09836 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 15:49:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:49:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: James Bottomley In-Reply-To: <1562082009.3321.31.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Message-ID: References: <7b73e1b7-cc34-982d-2a9c-acf62b88da16@linuxfoundation.org> <20263.1561993564@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1561996215.3551.49.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1562077203.3321.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1562080257.3321.19.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1562082009.3321.31.camel@HansenPartnership.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: 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: , On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, James Bottomley wrote: > On Tue, 2019-07-02 at 17:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > 2) Link to a previous version of patch series in the cover letter > > > > Lot of people provide already links in their cover letter. Many of > > them > > unfortunately use lkml.org which is a pain, but it's better than > > nothing. > > > > Ideally we can bring people to use the MSG id based links because > > they > > do not depend on any particular archive. > > > > That needs a bit more education. Proper documentation should solve > > that > > over time. If people use lkml.org for the link until they figure > > out > > what a message id is, fine. > > This is the bit that I think is the problem. However, if it's optional > but recommended I'm happy ... drive by committers won't do it, we don't > have to add it for them and likely if they were forced to do a V2 there > wasn't much illuminating content in V1 because it's probably process or > other trivial changes. Yes. I'm not worried about those. It mostly matters for larger patch series. Thanks, tglx