Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] [4/4] Discuss how to better prevent backports of commits that turn out to cause regressions

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 4:38 PM Konstantin Ryabitsev
<konstantin@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 12:29:09AM GMT, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > 1. disambiguates Link: trailers so they point to relevant online discussions
> > > 2. allows tooling like b4, patchwork, etc, to reliably match commits to
> > >    submissions for the purposes of better code review automation
> > > 3. allows stable and similar projects to better track series grouping for
> > >    commits
> >
> > Message-Id: sucks, I want a link I can open with a single click.
>
> But why would you want to, on a regular basis? Viewing the series submission
> has got to provide near zero useful info -- if it was accepted into the tree,
> then at most it would have a couple of stray code review trailers.
>
> > At your suggestion I switched to using https://msgid.link/ as the target
> > for patch links, eg:
> >
> >   Link: https://msgid.link/20240529123029.146953-2-mpe@ellerman.id.au
>
> This is still my recommendation, but it doesn't stop someone from using
> msgid.link URLs to link to actual discussions. It also doesn't solve the
> problem being discussed here -- reliably mapping commits to patch submissions
> for the purposes of automation.

IMO anything short of a new tag wouldn't help.

With a new tag, say Submission:, pointing to the original patch at
Lore, this could be addressed.

Of course, people would need to see a clear benefit to adopt it
because it would require some extra work to use.