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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox