Re: Replacing Link trailers

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On October 16, 2025 7:58:16 AM PDT, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 8:02 AM Konstantin Ryabitsev
><konstantin@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 08:29:01AM -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
>> > > Where exactly would that be added?  Are you suggesting that git add a
>> > > new atom_type of ATOM_MESSAGEID or something like that?
>> >
>> > Yes, I think so ... just looking at constructing a patch now.
>> > Regardless of the outcome of this debate it seems like a reasonable
>> > (and not kernel specific) feature to add to git.
>>
>> I am wholeheartedly for this approach. One of the downsides of the current
>> scheme is that Link: trailers can be pointing at multiple patch submissions
>> (e.g. if the commit wants to highlight a related patch series), so without a
>> clear indication which link is the provenance link, we still have potential
>> for confusion.
>>
>> I recommend that we all stop beating the Link: trailer topic and sit on our
>> hands until the above is either accepted or rejected by the git maintainers.
>
>git-am already supports adding message-ID though to the commit msg
>rather than the commit itself. A custom pager config could either hide
>it or transform it into a lore link. That would avoid the need to wait
>for a new git version to trickle out to everyone.
>
>With a new atom_type, there doesn't seem to be a simple way to turn on
>or off a field in git-log. We'd need '--pretty=linus' or some new git
>config setting.
>
>Rob
>
>

The Message-ID is largely useless without a List-ID at least, and if the maintainer picks it up directly then they will never see the List-ID and would have to add it manually.