On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 14:11:48 -0500 Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 > Peter said "maybe". I would think keeping this in SubmittingPatches would be better, as that's the one place we point people to to read (and I should re-read). -- Steve -- 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
