Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] [4/4] Discuss how to better prevent backports of commits that turn out to cause regressions

[Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>]

Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
>
...
>
> I understand the reasons why everyone hates having the "Message-ID:" trailer,
> and this is fine. Can I counter-propose that we have a unique URL for links
> specifically going to patch submissions from which the commits were made? I've
> been already recommending using the "msgid.link" domain, but I'll go a bit
> further and put forward the recommendation that:
>
> - commits MAY have Link: trailers indicating the exact origin of the patch. To
>   distinguish these links from other Link: trailers that may lead to relevant
>   online discussions, they should either use the "patch.msgid.link" domain, or 
>   indicate the nature of the link using the hash-notation. Examples:
>
>   - Link: https://patch.msgid.link/message@id-here
   
This is the better option. The fact that it's the patch link is right there
at the start of the line "patch.msgid.link", and will always be in the
same place visually, which helps human readers trying to recognise it
amongst other links.

>   - Link: https://lore.kernel.org/message@id-here # patch

Here you have to read all the way to the end of the line to see that
it's the patch. And it is worse with longer message ids, eg:

  - Link: https://lore.kernel.org/message@20240617-arboreal-industrious-hedgehog-5b84ae@meerkat # patch

The "# patch" is almost off the edge of the screen.

It's also a bit easier to grep for.

> This would satisfy both the need for automation to have a reliable way to find
> the origin of the commit, and clearly indicate the nature of the link for
> humans doing commit spelunking.

+100

cheers