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 CC9A22EFD for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:00:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io1-f65.google.com (mail-io1-f65.google.com [209.85.166.65]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B816313A for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 21:00:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io1-f65.google.com with SMTP id t6so2396962ios.7 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-f45.google.com (mail-io1-f45.google.com. [209.85.166.45]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r78sm209683ior.48.2019.08.28.14.00.16 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-f45.google.com with SMTP id q12so2439127iog.4 for ; Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:00:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190827134836.GB25038@kroah.com> <20190827153344.GC534@kroah.com> <20190827195351.GA30710@kroah.com> <20190828090837.GA31704@kroah.com> <20190828135820.GA24857@mit.edu> In-Reply-To: From: Doug Anderson Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 14:00:04 -0700 Message-ID: To: Johannes Berg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: Joel Fernandes , 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: , Hi, On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:47 PM Johannes Berg wrote: > > Hi Doug, > > > > The actual Message-Id generated there was: > > > > 20190828132723.0.RFC.Ie6289f437ae533d7fcaddfcee9202f0e92c6b2b9@changeid > > When you post a patch with that type of message ID, why don't you > already include a suitable archive Link: inside the patch posting? > > Then you don't have to rely on the maintainer to add the Link: tag when > they apply the patch. Many (kernel) maintainers do now, and pre-adding > the Link: tag means we maintainers should change our scripts to not > duplicate the Link: tag, but if you have a predictable Message-Id and > predictable archive then you ought to be able to already include link? That might work, but a few issues: 1. I'd have to guess that the Link would be valid. Until the patch is posted the Link is certainly not valid, so I'm basically adding to the patch something that says "I _think_ you'd be able to find this patch with this link". Seems a little sketchy. 2. The script would (presumably) want to look at where the patch was mailed to and either generate different links or not generate a link in some cases. Last I checked (maybe fixed now?) some mailing lists weren't archived on lore.kernel.org and not everyone CCs LKML. If nothing else the people using this script for posting patches to U-Boot wouldn't want a Link to lore.kernel.org 3. The link is of limited usefulness until it lands in the kernel tree, isn't it? If you found the patch on the mailing list before it lands then presumably you don't need a link to the patch itself. A link to previous versions could be useful, but I'm not trying to solve that (I'm assuming that tooling would eventually be developed that could use the Change-Id encoded in the Message-Id to help with this). 4. It feels like getting maintainers to add a "Link:" is a tractable (even if difficult) problem. There are a finite number of maintainers that can be told to do this instead of an infinite number of submitters. Presumably maintainers already need to learn to add "Link:" anyway since (even if I am surprised and lots of people adopt my proposal) you'll never get 100% of submitters adding a "Link:" like this. -Doug