From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB951C5DF60 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:30:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CCD02178F for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2019 08:30:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="f7G331WQ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726149AbfKHIaz (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2019 03:30:55 -0500 Received: from mail-vk1-f176.google.com ([209.85.221.176]:36026 "EHLO mail-vk1-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726072AbfKHIaz (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Nov 2019 03:30:55 -0500 Received: by mail-vk1-f176.google.com with SMTP id d10so1290098vke.3 for ; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:30:54 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k74K9qxBXEe03i9sWGZQuN7iZ0OGz9YDUUxBBc/5R2c=; b=f7G331WQngR0Vyfj786Y0KBUc6sLhXVdFamHMP3WtQQGWJa2JBOioaiBbedv57RduZ JPmQ2JMEE2s7x1QsDnxJ9ieV2ZFocJ4GNr8QfBAzkJMgq9p4ANwHdmPNiqT6rXfCT2RD KL7S4ATi0iTtjnovS7N5RwhSzyLWiMH9dF9GvuWlPARXUYh3xrW1R42+XQ9wtEXZJAwK IVYJ8NYF592moBsRsqnqntUgxbsG3V7alK9idFnJhtDuYOATEzk1uzFiv2ExZ4m2WTtZ JFxom4W6MStAdpKNOOronwPaojwR5rDdS3N49J5tMpqrHo11TKPm6L4XmQZai/ao3Y7B hIOw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k74K9qxBXEe03i9sWGZQuN7iZ0OGz9YDUUxBBc/5R2c=; b=jhR4mJIf6UhOELVudDBNE4quHbZk/wFJBR/EAXL9f4w6z45PRUhtjArb3713jKzjlO zuQhio5SqgdxCvrXHbDHrlCXbZRXZcDgZWpo7bCXn+NPUtWaqlOjrfpsOHVLlvNRWSka tTrJpUJucMGnBhm/kT6h4uqQPp5UXLKAMp65pjVCcuaxYRHLf+bFqWA/E0jV7HRy8ffa bEpwLgerkl6igVd3dPUvJWM35u4RPSGHoM6UCli0CY4r5gRHt34aZ7+ng2nzW0/bMaAg nKJ5qcMFUR6Lw807i+IJqsXTcBMbaouRxJttHzSOBZTE75iFcBaWPyyaLtLqLHnvrmXQ nJRw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWtuvXs4f5eQpcnGofXNuqrHqkbhGrWFEK4pJ6V4urs8OyF4aYu vdURC697vSazTiFdiyE5c49KTxWIVbrcJOe2NM2uRjvzcxg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwVKYXZoz/6v/7MxMQMml9wZyiNGq0E8T1knM96gdf3lKeICVOOpZUNfva1joBdJebiZ4iqQZw0Xxen3PCef+o= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:2155:: with SMTP id h82mr6500800vkh.18.1573201853448; Fri, 08 Nov 2019 00:30:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191107204349.hqpefgp7cowj6hof@chatter.i7.local> <1779121.stEDml5jbt@kreacher> In-Reply-To: <1779121.stEDml5jbt@kreacher> From: Han-Wen Nienhuys Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 09:30:41 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: using supersedes: trailer to indicate patch/series revision flow To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Konstantin Ryabitsev , workflows@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: workflows-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 12:45 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote= : > > 2. Should supersedes: link to the previous version of the patch, or the > > first ever version of the patch? I am leaning towards the latter, > > And then how do you know that version 2 was superseded by version 3? You throw the message ID into a search engine, and see what it returns. The advantage of keeping the patch series ID stable is that you can consider a patchseries as a document and then easily index it inside a service (say, patchwork) using Lucene, ElasticSearch or some other common technology. If you make the "supersedes" refer to specific versions, a workflow service will be more susceptible to errors if messages were lost, and the service has to work harder to aggregate the different versions of a patchseries together. Is it common for different authors to superseed each other's patch series? If yes, "superseeds: precise version" is more precise, if not, you get the same information from the timestamp of the cover letter. --=20 Han-Wen Nienhuys - Google Munich I work 80%. Don't expect answers from me on Fridays. -- Google Germany GmbH, Erika-Mann-Strasse 33, 80636 Munich Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Gesch=C3=A4ftsf=C3=BChrer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado