Hi Steven, On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:27 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 12:42:11 -0400 > Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > + A similar approach was attempted before as part of a different > > + effort [1], but the initial implementation caused too many > > + regressions [2], so it was backed out and reimplemented. > > + > > + Link: https://lore.kernel.org/some-msgid@here # [1] > > + Link: https://bugzilla.example.org/bug/12345 # [2] > > + > > + When using the ``Link:`` trailer to indicate the provenance of the > > + patch, you should use the dedicated ``patch.msgid.link`` domain. This > > + makes it possible for automated tooling to establish which link leads > > + to the original patch submission. For example:: > > + > > + Link: https://patch.msgid.link/patch-source-msgid@here > > Hmm, I mentioned this in the other thread, but I also like the fact > that my automated script uses the list that it was Cc'd to. That is, if > it Cc'd linux-trace-kernel, if not, if it Cc'd linux-trace-devel, it > adds that, otherwise it uses lkml. Now, I could just make the lkml use > the patch-source-msgid instead. > > This does give me some information about what the focus of the patch > was. Hmm, maybe I could just make it: > > Link: https://patch.msgid.link/patch-source-msgid@here # linux-trace-devel > > Would anyone have an issue with that? Or, just like with lore links: https://patch.msgid.link/linux-trace-devel/patch-source-msgid@here Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
