From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from fhigh-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com (fhigh-b5-smtp.messagingengine.com [202.12.124.156]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E04A81D5CE8 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 16:18:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.156 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744301942; cv=none; b=Mi+AvJDRdlVMFz6KZXDKdnogO7sHztwvjJQM6bCLv6lPHyKtP/PRtqbQIagOQSRVA0m0qalSNXbntDMKB9N3KRumxWkUv4+/ZwCHi/jRprmceqea9cK6RJ7NKiDFvBRxbt29+E3xxtRdUPItUvu+a0yy7Lz2cgxx9zPBDcpTdSc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744301942; c=relaxed/simple; bh=h/GYqmlkTgKR9sTPxE6i7vKiBYpbNu+rqJ9oGEK8iPU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=SR4klG6MQPjrkfTt9nVWC1HZhKFiOPKuey1ULtkk+7SNVKWSbFLjDh6rYa6C5pDGvYm+yMwlAaDxGzISErltQfsliGYpp8l6PsnIRj/PfS9hh6Xh78vsck68bYB9TUhuMiTmN0ZKd5lDTcc8HoQgDy5v8B/9Qd4mY94GiZ2cBdM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b=K3WZ70I9; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=U/tCwcW1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=202.12.124.156 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pobox.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pobox.com header.i=@pobox.com header.b="K3WZ70I9"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="U/tCwcW1" Received: from phl-compute-04.internal (phl-compute-04.phl.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailfhigh.stl.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6CBC25401F4; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 12:18:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from phl-frontend-01 ([10.202.2.160]) by phl-compute-04.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 10 Apr 2025 12:18:59 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=cc :cc:content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1744301938; x=1744388338; bh=E3vZLKkKDx aJsJ9pL7i4UR5gaiS6C4WA9pNC9CTNt5Y=; b=K3WZ70I94cGMuB8kahRuf39XbG xgVahsBspTiX3NrT2Wpkz/4iTvuh2FfKtEQkn9kHtZlituXK6BsNXbzYEMyXVUiK Dz/h60U79I06jDRpVK8QeX07B/5mOFXkkLbvBS9pIsuC/Cv1kA292CdwoI2ATtFb DTriR4pRlq/PVlWvaLcvw6dQmeu9QRLy8YvMwxVNMtN8I5Xus9r+S/JvbnTQ7prp Eg6EkM41mVoL9BIbeiog0fDUgUwbuZJTYpjBoea19vR2IladFC2So6S/t//e4/+w siU84JO5CY2FPQvDin+lRODBhNG3UeQkCFs0i3Mwk1NdCwk/0MzV/Bah+53A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; t= 1744301938; x=1744388338; bh=E3vZLKkKDxaJsJ9pL7i4UR5gaiS6C4WA9pN C9CTNt5Y=; b=U/tCwcW1m2SWizG13hi7GT4dHGBjBVYW+Na1bLCE+9dT/RlXh0p IDjknMSpNMUtgG71nVX9tbc537C0+jrnKVTMJL06cxNSRnKrGjwFDuqnn+SDVjFr H77sKOGjwtqXaQPaYNrBZBpL/ZnCNv7yF6gDq4EQgovrKgf2qKrIFwTfs6EbjGQ6 95qTDzN5Y62niBHZoNKl0piGXUlJdghXcKA0j4qSUNmkIGDCYSnd6lTP+S7uNp0V jMUbseVQHmW6QhOlgLQI1UPMN41pek6rkt/Mi5N58HfeRkQc6DL7xIaKtrlXRmk5 sKvaCQHlriItQ0N6IIhLcPaAJbvOl8FKzFQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeefvddrtddtgddvtdelfeejucetufdoteggodetrf dotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggv pdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpih gvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvvefujghffffkfgggtgesthdtredttder tdenucfhrhhomheplfhunhhiohcuvecujfgrmhgrnhhouceoghhithhsthgvrhesphhosg hogidrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheptedttdevffeuieeilefffedtiefgfeek veetveevuedtlefhtddugfeltdejledunecuffhomhgrihhnpehkvghrnhgvlhdrohhrgh enucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehgihht shhtvghrsehpohgsohigrdgtohhmpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopeelpdhmohguvgepshhmth hpohhuthdprhgtphhtthhopehthihtshhosehmihhtrdgvughupdhrtghpthhtohepnhhi tghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdprhgtphhtthhopehmrghrthhinhhvoh hniiesghhoohhglhgvrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithesvhhgvghrrdhkvghrnhgv lhdrohhrghdprhgtphhtthhopegvkhgvmhhpihhnsehgohhoghhlvgdrtghomhdprhgtph htthhopehstghothhtsehgihhtsghuthhlvghrrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtoheprhgvmhho segsuhgvnhiilhhirdguvghvpdhrtghpthhtohepphhhihhlihhpmhgvthiighgvrhessg hluhgvfihinhdrtghhpdhrtghpthhtohepghhithhsthgvrhesphhosghogidrtghomh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: if26b431b:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 10 Apr 2025 12:18:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: "Theodore Ts'o" Cc: Nico Williams , Martin von Zweigbergk , Git Mailing List , Edwin Kempin , Scott Chacon , remo@buenzli.dev, "philipmetzger@bluewin.ch" Subject: Re: Semantics of change IDs (Re: Gerrit, GitButler, and Jujutsu projects collaborating on change-id commit footer) In-Reply-To: <20250410134426.GB13132@mit.edu> (Theodore Ts'o's message of "Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:44:26 -0400") References: <20250408125521.GA17892@mit.edu> <20250409121924.GA148735@mit.edu> <20250410134426.GB13132@mit.edu> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 09:18:56 -0700 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain "Theodore Ts'o" writes: > Regardless how we come out on whethe having an "inode number" for the > high-level semantic value of a commit is worth it, I do think having a > "patch set ID" which ties related commits together does make sense, > though. That would solve some interesting problems both for the > web/forge review workflow as wel as the mailing list review workflow. > I'd be curious what people might think about that. As a concept, I agree that a mechanism to identify these iterations of the same topic collectively is a very valuable thing to have. FWIW, I use the Message-ID of the cover letter e-mail as a rough approximation for "patch set ID", and it is quite usable once you train your contributors to always make the cover letter for iteration N a direct reply to the cover letter for iteration N-1, and also make the individual patches a direct reply to the cover letter for the same iteration. Then visiting lore.kernel.org/$mid/ will give me at a glance some essential information about the series, like - how hotly the topic is being discussed? - does the iteration $mid I happened to have picked the latest, a bit older, or irrelevantly older? - has the topic been extending its scope? Thanks to the "cover for iteration N is a direct response for iteration N-1" and "cover is marked as [PATCH 0/$n]" conventions, "b4 am" grabs, by default, the patches from the latest iteration when given the message-id of the cover letter of any iteration of a patch set. Because most of the time a consumer of an evolving patchset is interested in the latest iteration (unless the contributor screws up, in which case we may need to go back and explicitly grab an older iteration), I never felt a need for an official "patch set ID", though.