On 11/05/2015 01:31 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:13:01 -0400
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
Chris Metcalf, EZChip Semiconductor
http://www.ezchip.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
