From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fengguang Wu Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/1] format-patch: add an option to record base tree info Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:00:15 +0800 Message-ID: <20160223120015.GA10488@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> References: <1456109938-8568-1-git-send-email-xiaolong.ye@intel.com> <1456109938-8568-2-git-send-email-xiaolong.ye@intel.com> <20160223014741.GA21025@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <20160223091740.GA3830@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <20160223103253.GE5273@mwanda> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , Xiaolong Ye , git@vger.kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com, philip.li@intel.com, julie.du@intel.com, Linus Torvalds , "Eric W. Biederman" , Christoph Hellwig , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML To: Dan Carpenter X-From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 23 13:00:36 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: glk-linux-kernel-3@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1aYBdn-0008Ec-NH for glk-linux-kernel-3@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:00:32 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751555AbcBWMAX (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:00:23 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:4499 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750737AbcBWMAV (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:00:21 -0500 Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Feb 2016 04:00:20 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,489,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="657799872" Received: from liquan1-mobl1.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com) ([10.254.214.237]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Feb 2016 04:00:16 -0800 Received: from wfg by wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com with local (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1aYBdX-0002xU-Lp; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:00:15 +0800 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160223103253.GE5273@mwanda> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi Dan, On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 01:32:53PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > So this is the format for the first patch? > > base commit: 0233b800c838ddda41db318ee396320b3c21a560 What's in my mind is lines like base tree/branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master base commit: afd2ff9b7e1b367172f18ba7f693dfb62bdcb2dc base patch-id: a849260a843115dbac4b1a330d44256ee6b16d7b The point is one piece of information per line, so that new lines can be added trivially in future, like base patch-subject: Linux 4.4 base tag: v4.4 The exact format can be improved wherever suitable. For example, use more suitable key name part (eg. "base commit" => "base-commit") or value part (eg. "$tree_url $branch" to "$tree_url#$branch"). > Can we change it to include the name of the public tree we are starting > from? > > applies-to: 0233b800c838 git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/davem/net-next.git#master No problem, just that I'd prefer breaking up such information into multi "key: value" lines. > Of course, my absolute prefered format would be: > > applies-to: net-next 0233b800c838 > > I don't think that's possible though? I often write that sort of a line > in my emails to Dave already. Yeah, that'd be most human readable. It does require people (and scripts) to reach consensus on the tree/branch name, which may only be possible for well known trees. > Fengguang was suggesting something like this if we have to include > unmerged patches: > > applies-to: net-next 0233b800c838 > private patchset 1 > private patchset 2 > > I don't think git knows what a patchset is. Git may not need to have patchset concept. Suppose a developer's local branch has v4.4 private commit 1, subject: do aaa private commit 2, subject: do bbb private commit 3, subject: do ccc private commit 4, subject: do ddd private commit 5, subject: do eee If he decided to send commits 1-2 as one patchset, and 3-5 as another patchset to LKML. The 2 cover letters would look like (only showing useful fields): $ git format-patch commit 1..commit 2 [PATCH 0/2] base commit: afd2ff9b7e1b367172f18ba7f693dfb62bdcb2dc $ git format-patch commit 3..commit 5 [PATCH 0/3] base patch-subject: do bbb The 0day robot will be able to find the suitable base and re-create exactly the same tree object for both the above 2 patchsets based on the first one's "base commit" and the second one's "base patch-subject". > We would have to include the subject line for each unmerged patch. That's a good idea! > I think we should only do that if there is a cover letter, otherwise > the it's too noisy. Or if no cover letter, the information can be included in the first patch, ie. [PATCH 1/N]. Thanks, Fengguang