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 9C313CD3 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 23:03:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B81A87C for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 23:03:58 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1562195036.2768.4.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Laurent Pinchart , Theodore Ts'o Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 16:03:56 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20190703085620.GA5007@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <1562080257.3321.19.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1562080696.3321.21.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Wed, 2019-07-03 at 11:56 +0300, 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) ? I always apply from the list. Apart from the obvious benefit of getting others to review and not giving the impression of a favourite path into the tree, I do it because as I construct patches and rework them I actually build the version information into the change log using rebase (with a --- separating it from the main commit message). This is so I can send the emails directly from my tree without having to add the version change information but it does mean the only way I lose the version history from my patches when they go into the tree for real is by doing an am apply from the list. James