On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:13:20 +0200 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The *only* question is, whether we should both use the tag Foo: for the > different meanings and different workflows, or whether one should use > Foo: and the other should use Bar:. This is, of course, a part of the wider discussion on patch tracking IDs and such; I kind of doubt that this relatively small group can resolve it for the community as a whole. It seems to be agreed that it's good for a patch submission to reference previous postings; I'm not sure that we've decided on Link: as the way to do that. That creates a bit of a problem for me; I don't want to be trying to create community policy through the docs; I'd rather accept patches that I know reflect an existing consensus. The practice of using Link: tags to refer to previous discussions is well established in the TIP tree neighborhood, if nowhere else. So there are precedents for using it the way Russell is wanting to. Multiple tags can reflect the discussion at various points. I do hesitate a bit to put this into submitting-patches.rst for a couple of reasons, though. One is that I'm not at all sure we want to encourage submitters to add these tags; it sounds like a recipe for maintainers having to follow them all and decide which ones really belong there, and maintainers don't really need more to do. That document is already *way* too long, to the point that it's a barrier that new contributors have to overcome; I worry about making it even longer. Probably we'll end up adding something like this. I do think I would agree with Jani, though, that we should at least lightly discourage developers from adding these tags all over the place. Sorry for the stream-of-consciousness dump... jon
