On 18.06.24 18:42, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > Based on multiple conversations, most recently on the ksummit mailing > list [1], add some best practices for using the Link trailer, such as: > > - how to use markdown-like bracketed numbers in the commit message to > indicate the corresponding link > - when to use lore.kernel.org vs patch.msgid.link domains [...] > + 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 I wonder how long it will take until someone starts using patch.msgid.link/ for things that are not the submission of the change, for example by misunderstanding what "provenance of the patch" is meant to mean here. How about something this: """ In case you want to record the public review submission of a patch while committing it, use a ``Link:`` trailer with the dedicated ``patch.msgid.link`` domain:: Link: https://patch.msgid.link/patch-source-msgid@here This makes it possible to reliably look the submission up, hence don't use that domain for any other patches you might want to link to. """ But I suspect some people will never see this and start assuming that this domain should be meant for all patches -- and not all of these cases will be found during review (or by checkpatch, in case we add a check and people actually run it). Writing that made me think a dedicated tag like "Lore-Submission" or "Public-Review-Link" could avoid this while keeping some of the aspects that Linus likes about "Link" -- but I doubt that will convince him. Ciao, Thorsten
