From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753310Ab1HOWNT (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:13:19 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:41402 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752157Ab1HOWNS (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:13:18 -0400 Message-ID: <4E4999EA.5060603@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:12:58 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110707 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Dunlap CC: Mike Waychison , Greg KH , lkml , Andrew Morton , Theodore Tso , Alan Cox Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add Internal-reference-ID: patch tag References: <20110729180028.6a2091b3.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <20110730235644.GA29671@suse.de> <4E359A74.7090408@zytor.com> <20110813123401.76ffcfcc.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <2d50505d-3500-47d8-84d4-b32850bdec7e@email.android.com> <20110814202322.16b50ff5.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <4E48AC7D.4030908@zytor.com> <4E496529.5080702@zytor.com> <20110815132331.74cd0484.rdunlap@xenotime.net> <4E4985DB.20109@zytor.com> <20110815140029.f9624d57.rdunlap@xenotime.net> In-Reply-To: <20110815140029.f9624d57.rdunlap@xenotime.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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: > > I think that Mike was just giving 2 examples (for 2 patches). His proposal > was simply for: > Internal-reference-ID: > > 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