From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Cc: Mike Waychison <mikew@google.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add Internal-reference-ID: patch tag
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:12:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E4999EA.5060603@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110815140029.f9624d57.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
On 08/15/2011 02:00 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>
> You said (on July-31):
> "Just to avoid namespace collisions, can we at least put the owner
> somewhere standardized, e.g. <2011.0729.id1@rdunlap>, <33999@google> and
> so on?"
>
> I read that as 2 different patches & 2 different IDs, but this more
> recent line:
>> Internal-reference-ID: <2011.0729.id1@rdunlap> <33999@google>
>
> would be for one patch with multiple IDs.
>
>> Mike proposed:
>>
>> Internal-reference-ID: <2011.0729.id1@rdunlap>
>> Internal-reference-ID: <bug-45322143@google>
>
> I think that Mike was just giving 2 examples (for 2 patches). His proposal
> was simply for:
> Internal-reference-ID: <arbitrarytextforid@owner>
>
> which matches your request fairly well AFAICT.
>
Yes, that was my request. But I also do observe that a single patch can
be tracked in multiple internal databases; for example, if
(hypothetically) Red Hat reports a bug to Google which ends up being
tracked in both bug databases, they may both want to tag the same patch.
> But if we are changing things, I think I prefer your other suggestion
> for the ID tag: "Patch-ID". I like it because it's shorter and
> easier to type. :)
Agreed.
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-15 22:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-30 1:00 [PATCH] Documentation: add Internal-reference-ID: patch tag Randy Dunlap
2011-07-30 23:56 ` Greg KH
2011-07-31 18:07 ` Mike Waychison
2011-07-31 18:09 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-13 19:34 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-08-13 21:29 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-15 3:23 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-08-15 5:19 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-15 17:39 ` Mike Waychison
2011-08-15 18:27 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-15 20:23 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-08-15 20:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2011-08-15 21:00 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-08-15 22:12 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2011-08-15 18:36 ` Arnaud Lacombe
2011-08-15 20:12 ` Randy Dunlap
2011-08-16 15:18 ` Florian Mickler
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E4999EA.5060603@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikew@google.com \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.