On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:13:01 -0400
Chris Metcalf <[email protected]> wrote:
> +When manually adding In-Reply-To: headers to a patch (e.g., using `git
> +send email`), use common sense to associate the patch with previous
> +relevant discussion, e.g. link a bug fix to the email with the bug report.
> +For a multi-patch series, it is generally best to avoid using
> +In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the series. This way
> +multiple versions of the patch don't become an unmanageable forest of
> +references in email clients. If a link is helpful, you can use an
> +"http://lkml.kernel.org/r/MESSAGEID" URL (e.g., in the cover email
> +text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series.
So this is sitting in my docs folder waiting to see if anybody else had
anything to say. Nope. I guess I'm not opposed to this addition, but
I'm not quite sure what problem is being solved. Is there a plague of
inappropriate hand-crafted In-Reply-To headers out there that I've not
seen?
Beyond that, this seems like advice that is better put into
SubmittingPatches if we really want it.
Thanks,
jon
On 11/05/2015 01:31 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:13:01 -0400
> Chris Metcalf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> +When manually adding In-Reply-To: headers to a patch (e.g., using `git
>> +send email`), use common sense to associate the patch with previous
>> +relevant discussion, e.g. link a bug fix to the email with the bug report.
>> +For a multi-patch series, it is generally best to avoid using
>> +In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the series. This way
>> +multiple versions of the patch don't become an unmanageable forest of
>> +references in email clients. If a link is helpful, you can use an
>> +"http://lkml.kernel.org/r/MESSAGEID" URL (e.g., in the cover email
>> +text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series.
> So this is sitting in my docs folder waiting to see if anybody else had
> anything to say. Nope. I guess I'm not opposed to this addition, but
> I'm not quite sure what problem is being solved. Is there a plague of
> inappropriate hand-crafted In-Reply-To headers out there that I've not
> seen?
The "git help send-email" documentation for "--in-reply-to" suggests
building hand-crafted In-Reply-To headers this way for subsequent
versions of patch series. This paragraph is intended to suggest that's
a bad idea.
> Beyond that, this seems like advice that is better put into
> SubmittingPatches if we really want it.
That was my original thought, but Peter suggested email-clients.txt:
lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 14:11:48 -0500
Chris Metcalf <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/05/2015 01:31 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:13:01 -0400
> > Chris Metcalf <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> +When manually adding In-Reply-To: headers to a patch (e.g., using `git
> >> +send email`), use common sense to associate the patch with previous
> >> +relevant discussion, e.g. link a bug fix to the email with the bug report.
> >> +For a multi-patch series, it is generally best to avoid using
> >> +In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the series. This way
> >> +multiple versions of the patch don't become an unmanageable forest of
> >> +references in email clients. If a link is helpful, you can use an
> >> +"http://lkml.kernel.org/r/MESSAGEID" URL (e.g., in the cover email
> >> +text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series.
> > So this is sitting in my docs folder waiting to see if anybody else had
> > anything to say. Nope. I guess I'm not opposed to this addition, but
> > I'm not quite sure what problem is being solved. Is there a plague of
> > inappropriate hand-crafted In-Reply-To headers out there that I've not
> > seen?
>
> The "git help send-email" documentation for "--in-reply-to" suggests
> building hand-crafted In-Reply-To headers this way for subsequent
> versions of patch series. This paragraph is intended to suggest that's
> a bad idea.
>
> > Beyond that, this seems like advice that is better put into
> > SubmittingPatches if we really want it.
>
> That was my original thought, but Peter suggested email-clients.txt:
>
> lkml.kernel.org/r/[email protected]
>
Peter said "maybe". I would think keeping this in SubmittingPatches
would be better, as that's the one place we point people to to read
(and I should re-read).
-- Steve
Add a paragraph suggesting best practices for when to link patches
to previous LKML messages via In-Reply-To.
Signed-off-by: Chris Metcalf <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
index fd89b04d34f0..9f61620f34ef 100644
--- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
+++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
@@ -675,6 +675,16 @@ A couple of example Subjects:
Subject: [patch 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
Subject: [PATCHv2 001/207] x86: fix eflags tracking
+It can be helpful to manually add In-Reply-To: headers to a patch
+(e.g., when using "git send email") to associate the patch with
+previous relevant discussion, e.g. to link a bug fix to the email with
+the bug report. However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally
+best to avoid using In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the
+series. This way multiple versions of the patch don't become an
+unmanageable forest of references in email clients. If a link is
+helpful, you can use the https://lkml.kernel.org/ redirector (e.g., in
+the cover email text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series.
+
The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body,
and has the form:
--
2.1.2
On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 03:21:47PM -0500, Chris Metcalf wrote:
> Add a paragraph suggesting best practices for when to link patches
> to previous LKML messages via In-Reply-To.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Metcalf <[email protected]>
ACK!
Thanks!
> ---
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> index fd89b04d34f0..9f61620f34ef 100644
> --- a/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> +++ b/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> @@ -675,6 +675,16 @@ A couple of example Subjects:
> Subject: [patch 2/5] ext2: improve scalability of bitmap searching
> Subject: [PATCHv2 001/207] x86: fix eflags tracking
>
> +It can be helpful to manually add In-Reply-To: headers to a patch
> +(e.g., when using "git send email") to associate the patch with
> +previous relevant discussion, e.g. to link a bug fix to the email with
> +the bug report. However, for a multi-patch series, it is generally
> +best to avoid using In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the
> +series. This way multiple versions of the patch don't become an
> +unmanageable forest of references in email clients. If a link is
> +helpful, you can use the https://lkml.kernel.org/ redirector (e.g., in
> +the cover email text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series.
> +
> The "from" line must be the very first line in the message body,
> and has the form:
>
> --
> 2.1.2
>
On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:21:47 -0500
Chris Metcalf <[email protected]> wrote:
> Add a paragraph suggesting best practices for when to link patches
> to previous LKML messages via In-Reply-To.
We're getting there, but in the middle of the discussion on the format of
the patch itself seems like the wrong place. So I've applied this, but I
took the liberty of moving the new paragraph into its own section.
Thanks,
jon
On 11/11/2015 12:07 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 15:21:47 -0500
> Chris Metcalf <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Add a paragraph suggesting best practices for when to link patches
>> to previous LKML messages via In-Reply-To.
> We're getting there, but in the middle of the discussion on the format of
> the patch itself seems like the wrong place. So I've applied this, but I
> took the liberty of moving the new paragraph into its own section.
Great, thanks!
--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com