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

Laurent Pinchart
2024-06-14T14:58:06Z

On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 10:43:51AM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 00:29:09 +1000 Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > Message-Id: sucks, I want a link I can open with a single click.
> >
> > At your suggestion I switched to using https://msgid.link/ as the target
> > for patch links, eg:
> >
> > Link: https://msgid.link/20240529123029.146953-2-mpe@ellerman.id.au
> >
> > Which gives the reader a hint that the link is just to the submission.
> >
> > I don't really care if the tag is "Link:", but it has to be a URL, not
> > just a bare message-id that I have to cut and paste like it's the stone
> > age.
>
> I just switch my scripts over to Message-Id: and applied it, and after
> playing with it a little, I agree with the above sentiment. I like
> having a link to the actual patch that I can just click on. The
> message-id adds more steps to get there.

I'm sure someone could easily come up with a script that parses the
Message-Id trailer and opens lore.kernel.org in a web browser. You can
then bind that to a key in mutt, and won't have to even click on a link
:-)

Jokes aside, I think trailers should be designed first and foremost to
provide the data that is needed to solve the problems at hand. How to
format that data (link vs. msg-id) for human consumption is secondary.

> I'm going back to the link, but I agree with others, "Link:" should be
> for the discussions. Perhaps we could use "Pulled-from:" ?

--
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart