From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE8DE2222AF; Sat, 6 Sep 2025 18:50:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757184650; cv=none; b=j6VcXUWPCYgLEKYUNwq5pA9IMxpfsDQD6xQI1HUR1ZqfShfsG0tQ7iJyQUjrbJ7v0iUjuVZKGxNOSFJji9Su6u0KbfpGvSD8YOG1zA7g2xxcxmeTVtpj6w5XqGhtlruFxRdYJ0xQy6m8jvSUYN/dsXPvBxJgdk5eZ/FvTd5i1XQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757184650; c=relaxed/simple; bh=FxXZFlSUHRGwj45r/lRFUsNZzQNOYdefVc1ypWMBIeM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Ab2w3dEwv7JYGcU8PiX62Z/P/m9PzNtsJu2OIkVuYgF+FHTYm/TAehjfhmwW5HnPtVCP8BqySbH5qpqHE1nIp8HtrCEf7sogdEvYmJ2NYICMI4joRq/gEm/5Pawa6kGeg/R6jXKUTeFUGj+gFZulP5A0DnOLNWEY6rt6Rlxw6pg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b=cDeOnFku; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linuxfoundation.org header.i=@linuxfoundation.org header.b="cDeOnFku" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37245C4CEE7; Sat, 6 Sep 2025 18:50:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=korg; t=1757184650; bh=FxXZFlSUHRGwj45r/lRFUsNZzQNOYdefVc1ypWMBIeM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=cDeOnFkuoQmpMTWI9WG5kzXFrafRp0OyPMQNGIL3DhCYUNeVCz3BbOwLrskAwOJht x8aj5el9I9DSeONhE8SkPNxPDTF06QSZlZk4bZ4JOkco4fCo7Gv8oJTBwOyIWrpRZM C4p43LcXQcdlC3V7XV5Wd1i0SaXReLg96VtEsO9I= Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2025 14:50:49 -0400 From: Konstantin Ryabitsev To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Greg KH , Jens Axboe , Caleb Sander Mateos , io-uring , workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Link trailers revisited (was Re: [GIT PULL] io_uring fix for 6.17-rc5) Message-ID: <20250906-macho-reindeer-of-certainty-ff2cbb@lemur> References: <9ef87524-d15c-4b2c-9f86-00417dad9c48@kernel.dk> <20250905-lovely-prehistoric-goldfish-04e1c3@lemur> <20250905-sparkling-stalwart-galago-8a87e0@lemur> <2025090614-busily-upright-444d@gregkh> <20250906-almond-tench-of-aurora-3431ee@lemur> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Sat, Sep 06, 2025 at 08:31:59AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, 6 Sept 2025 at 06:51, Konstantin Ryabitsev > wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, `shazam -M` is not perfect, because we do need to know the > > base-commit, and there's still way too many series sent without this info. > > No, no. You're thinking about it wrong. > > An emailed patch series is *not* a git pull. If you want actual real > git history, just use git. Using a patch series and shazam for that > would be *bad*. It's actively worse than just using git, with zero > upside. The primary consumer of this are the CI systems, though, like those that plug into patchwork. In order to be able to run a bunch of tests they need to be able to apply the patches to a tree, so, in a sense, they do need to recreate git as much as possible, including the branch point. > No, the upside of a patch series is that it's *not* fixed in stone yet > - not in history, not in acks, not in actual code. So do *not* > encourage people to think of it as some second-rate "git history" > model. It's not, and it would be *BAD* at it. b4 will tell you if a series applies cleanly to the current tree, but I don't think we make use of this with `shazam -M` -- we always try to parent it against the indicated base commit. Is the recommendation then to always try to use the latest tree and bail out if it doesn't apply? > That kind of global history would be *worse* for the whole "send > patches by email" model. > > So don't strive to replicate git - badly. Strive to do a *good* job. But people do want to replicate git, if only so they can run integration tests in a more automated fashion. If I understand correctly, you suggest two modes of operations: 1. recreate the tree exactly as the author intended, so that CI systems can run tests. 2. try to create a merge commit on top of the latest HEAD and bail if it's not working, letting the maintainer fix any conflicts on their own. > Your comment about how you want to know the base commit makes me think > you are missing the point. No, I'm mostly implementing what people tell me they'd like to see. :) Someone once told me that they really wanted to be able to treat mailed series exactly like a pull request, hence why this feature exists. You're actually the first person to say that this behaviour is not what we should be doing. -K