Re: [PATCH] Documentation: add Internal-reference-ID: patch tag

[Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:47:23 -0700 H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> On 08/15/2011 01:23 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:27:53 -0700 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > 
> >> On 08/15/2011 10:39 AM, Mike Waychison wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> I would like to see the <id@owner> format I mentioned.
> >>>
> >>> Is there a middle ground if we say:
> >>>
> >>> Internal-reference-ID: <arbitrarytextforid@owner>
> >>>
> >>> so
> >>>
> >>> Internal-reference-ID: <2011.0729.id1@rdunlap>
> >>> Internal-reference-ID: <bug-45322143@google>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Personally I don't care if they are separate lines or all on the same line.
> > 
> > I don't understand how that answers Mike's question...
> > 
> Then I don't understand the question.

OK, I see.

> I proposed:
> 
> Internal-reference-ID: <2011.0729.id1@rdunlap> <33999@google>

You said (on July-31):
"Just to avoid namespace collisions, can we at least put the owner
somewhere standardized, e.g. <2011.0729.id1@rdunlap>, <33999@google> and
so on?"

I read that as 2 different patches & 2 different IDs, but this more
recent line:
> Internal-reference-ID: <2011.0729.id1@rdunlap> <33999@google>

would be for one patch with multiple IDs.


> Mike proposed:
> 
> Internal-reference-ID: <2011.0729.id1@rdunlap>
> Internal-reference-ID: <bug-45322143@google>

I think that Mike was just giving 2 examples (for 2 patches).  His proposal
was simply for:
Internal-reference-ID: <arbitrarytextforid@owner>

which matches your request fairly well AFAICT.

But if we are changing things, I think I prefer your other suggestion
for the ID tag:  "Patch-ID".  I like it because it's shorter and
easier to type.  :)


> The only difference I see is if they are on the same line, which I don't
> personally care about.


---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***