Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: best practices for using Link trailers

[Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 10:12:35AM GMT, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > +     Link: https://patch.msgid.link/patch-source-msgid@here
> >
> > Hmm, I mentioned this in the other thread, but I also like the fact
> > that my automated script uses the list that it was Cc'd to. That is, if
> > it Cc'd linux-trace-kernel, if not, if it Cc'd linux-trace-devel, it
> > adds that, otherwise it uses lkml. Now, I could just make the lkml use
> > the patch-source-msgid instead.
> >
> > This does give me some information about what the focus of the patch
> > was. Hmm, maybe I could just make it:
> >
> >   Link: https://patch.msgid.link/patch-source-msgid@here # linux-trace-devel
> >
> > Would anyone have an issue with that?
> 
> Or, just like with lore links:
> 
>     https://patch.msgid.link/linux-trace-devel/patch-source-msgid@here

I don't recommend this because it is not always a reliable mechanism to just
take the local part of the list address and assume that it will match the list
directory on lore.kernel.org. We've had lists that moved around or got
renamed, or disambiguated for clarity.

Overall, we're generally moving away from "where was this sent?" having any
importance -- we already support lei queries and should soon have bridges
exposing patches submitted via forge interfaces. If you want to indicate the
focus of the patch, then going by the list to which it was sent is going to
increasingly lose importance.

-K