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

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>]

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 2:22 PM Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:
> > On Sat, 29 Jun 2019, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> >> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 22:51:03 +0200,
> >> Luck, Tony wrote:
> >> > That captures for posterity the useful information without
> >> > bulking up the commit log with the blow-by-blow deltas of
> >> > how the patch series evolved across 27 versions submitted
> >> > to the mailing list.
> >>
> >> Agreed.  And I'm thinking whether we may have come consistent tag
> >> for following the post discussions on ML archive.  Then the detailed
> >> descriptions can be dropped from the changelog, and readers can still
> >> follow easily.  e.g. the patch version change can be simply a
> >> reference URL.
> >
> > This tag exists today:
> >
> >      Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/MESSAGE-ID
> >
> > my 'grab patches from list' scripts insert that tag automatically and it's
> > part of the commit changelog in git. That allows you to just jump to the
> > mail archive of the merged submission.
>
> If you've got the link back to the mailing list archive, do you also
> need Cc: tags in the change log?
>
> It's always seemed to me they don't really add any value, they just tell
> you that lots of people were Cc'ed on the patch and probably didn't have
> time to review it :)

+1

Especially if the CC list was generated by blindly copying the output
from scripts/get_maintainer.pl, without passing through a common sense
filter.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds