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 04A68111F for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:12:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8231F854 for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 09:12:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 11:12:11 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Laurent Pinchart In-Reply-To: <20190703085620.GA5007@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> Message-ID: References: <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> <20190702224347.GJ3032@mit.edu> <20190703085620.GA5007@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: James Bottomley , 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 Wed, 3 Jul 2019, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 06:43:47PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 03:26:48PM -0700, 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. > > > > If we really want to use the Link: header, we should be able to do > > this without requiring any changes to git. > > > > Step 1) git config am.messageid true > > Step 2) Write and install a .git/hooks/applypatch-msg script which > > looks for Message-Id: and transmogrifies that line to a > > Link: trailer, using the lore.kernel.org URL template > > Step 3) Document this in Documentation/process. For bonus points > > create a script which automatically sets up the user's git > > configuration by setting up am.messageid config and > > installing the hook file. > > Step 4) Profit > > I may have missed the obvious, but while this should work great for > patches applied with git-am, what's the expected workflow for patches > written by the author of a pull request ? I certainly post my own > patches for review on mailing lists, but I don't fetch them back from > the list before sending a pull request. Do we want to move towards a > model where maintainers should retrieve their own patches from the lists > (or from patchwork) ? Yes. If you just commit, post and then send a pull request later how are you dealing with Reviewed-by/Acked-by/Tested-by replies on the list? Either they do not end up in the changelogs or you have to redo the commits anyway. So moving to a always redo from mail/patchwork just unifies the workflow. I'm doing that always because I'm way too lazy to collect the tags from replies manually. I just save the whole thread as mbox and let the tools sort it out. Thanks, tglx