Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Patch version changes in commit logs?

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 00:48 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 00:07 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, 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.
> 
> The point is that 10+ years ago we had:
> 
>  LKML-Reference: <message.id>
> 
> That upset Linus and he asked explicitely for a proper link. We
> changed it to Link: ....  That's why lkml.kernel.org/r/ exists in the
> first place. That happened in 2011 (I'm just too tired to find that
> old mail thread now) The author of this Message-ID change was well
> aware of that in 2014...
> 
> So now you want to go back to that old scheme which we replaced 8+
> years ago?

At the moment I'm just pointing out that git has has the message-id
capture feature for too long to try to make them add it in a different
way, so if we want to use what git itself does rather than script our
own solution we're a bit stuck if we don't like the tag.

> > > We really don't want yet another version of tag for that purpose.
> > > The 'Link:' tag is documented and proven to be useful.
> > 
> > You were the one pushing this, do you really want to hold it up
> > because what's available isn't exactly what you want?
> > 
> > What's wrong with Kees' suggestion that we add a new config option
> > to determine how we display the tag?  The information is basically
> > there so a Message-Id: tag can be converted to any type of Link:
> > tag you like.
> 
> And that new config option just works and does not require any
> changes to git? If so, problem solved. If not, you still have to talk
> to the git folks.

No, this new config option would need to be accepted upstream first. 
But it can be scripted now so you can have a git log command that
transforms the Message-Id: to a Link: in whatever format you want.

> > I'm going to be a lot more successful going to the git upstream and
> > saying we've already been using a Link tag for a while, so we'd
> > like your message-id to appear as a Link: for compatibility than I
> > am going to be to try to get them to add a Link: tag ...
> 
> I did not say that we have to make them add a shiny new Link tag.
> 
> Of course if there is already a Message-ID magic, then building upon
> it by making it customizable is the obvious solution.

An option that transforms how it goes into the commit instead of one
that transforms how it appears in git-log?  If they'd accept a
transform on log option, I'm sure they'd accept a transform on commit
one.

James