Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation: best practices for using Link trailers

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>]

Hi Steven,

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:27 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 12:42:11 -0400
> Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > +     A similar approach was attempted before as part of a different
> > +     effort [1], but the initial implementation caused too many
> > +     regressions [2], so it was backed out and reimplemented.
> > +
> > +     Link: https://lore.kernel.org/some-msgid@here # [1]
> > +     Link: https://bugzilla.example.org/bug/12345  # [2]
> > +
> > +   When using the ``Link:`` trailer to indicate the provenance of the
> > +   patch, you should use the dedicated ``patch.msgid.link`` domain. This
> > +   makes it possible for automated tooling to establish which link leads
> > +   to the original patch submission. For example::
> > +
> > +     Link: https://patch.msgid.link/patch-source-msgid@here
>
> Hmm, I mentioned this in the other thread, but I also like the fact
> that my automated script uses the list that it was Cc'd to. That is, if
> it Cc'd linux-trace-kernel, if not, if it Cc'd linux-trace-devel, it
> adds that, otherwise it uses lkml. Now, I could just make the lkml use
> the patch-source-msgid instead.
>
> This does give me some information about what the focus of the patch
> was. Hmm, maybe I could just make it:
>
>   Link: https://patch.msgid.link/patch-source-msgid@here # linux-trace-devel
>
> Would anyone have an issue with that?

Or, just like with lore links:

    https://patch.msgid.link/linux-trace-devel/patch-source-msgid@here

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds