Re: [PATCH] Documentation/email-clients.txt: discuss In-Reply-To

[Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com>]

On 11/05/2015 01:31 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:13:01 -0400
> Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@ezchip.com> wrote:
>
>> +When manually adding In-Reply-To: headers to a patch (e.g., using `git
>> +send email`), use common sense to associate the patch with previous
>> +relevant discussion, e.g. link a bug fix to the email with the bug report.
>> +For a multi-patch series, it is generally best to avoid using
>> +In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the series.  This way
>> +multiple versions of the patch don't become an unmanageable forest of
>> +references in email clients.  If a link is helpful, you can use an
>> +"http://lkml.kernel.org/r/MESSAGEID" URL (e.g., in the cover email
>> +text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series.
> So this is sitting in my docs folder waiting to see if anybody else had
> anything to say.  Nope.  I guess I'm not opposed to this addition, but
> I'm not quite sure what problem is being solved.  Is there a plague of
> inappropriate hand-crafted In-Reply-To headers out there that I've not
> seen?

The "git help send-email" documentation for "--in-reply-to" suggests
building hand-crafted In-Reply-To headers this way for subsequent
versions of patch series. This paragraph is intended to suggest that's
a bad idea.

> Beyond that, this seems like advice that is better put into
> SubmittingPatches if we really want it.

That was my original thought, but Peter suggested email-clients.txt:

lkml.kernel.org/r/20151023090459.GW17308@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net

-- 
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com