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 C817EE57 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 22:48:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9887670D for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2019 22:48:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 00:48:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: James Bottomley In-Reply-To: <1562106408.29304.11.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Message-ID: References: <20263.1561993564@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1561996215.3551.49.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1562077203.3321.2.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII 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 Tue, 2 Jul 2019, James Bottomley wrote: > On Wed, 2019-07-03 at 00:07 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Jul 2019, 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. The point is that 10+ years ago we had: LKML-Reference: That upset Linus and he asked explicitely for a proper link. We changed it to Link: .... That's why lkml.kernel.org/r/ exists in the first place. That happened in 2011 (I'm just too tired to find that old mail thread now) The author of this Message-ID change was well aware of that in 2014... So now you want to go back to that old scheme which we replaced 8+ years ago? > > We really don't want yet another version of tag for that purpose. The > > 'Link:' tag is documented and proven to be useful. > > You were the one pushing this, do you really want to hold it up because > what's available isn't exactly what you want? > > What's wrong with Kees' suggestion that we add a new config option to > determine how we display the tag? The information is basically there > so a Message-Id: tag can be converted to any type of Link: tag you > like. And that new config option just works and does not require any changes to git? If so, problem solved. If not, you still have to talk to the git folks. > I'm going to be a lot more successful going to the git upstream and > saying we've already been using a Link tag for a while, so we'd like > your message-id to appear as a Link: for compatibility than I am going > to be to try to get them to add a Link: tag ... I did not say that we have to make them add a shiny new Link tag. Of course if there is already a Message-ID magic, then building upon it by making it customizable is the obvious solution. Thanks, tglx