From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753918AbcBXCzu (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:55:50 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:35094 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750899AbcBXCzs (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:55:48 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,492,1449561600"; d="scan'208";a="658251356" Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:55:19 +0800 From: Fengguang Wu To: Dan Carpenter Cc: Junio C Hamano , Xiaolong Ye , git@vger.kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com, philip.li@intel.com, julie.du@intel.com, Linus Torvalds , "Eric W. Biederman" , Christoph Hellwig , "H. Peter Anvin" , LKML Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 1/1] format-patch: add an option to record base tree info Message-ID: <20160224025519.GB16562@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> References: <1456109938-8568-1-git-send-email-xiaolong.ye@intel.com> <1456109938-8568-2-git-send-email-xiaolong.ye@intel.com> <20160223014741.GA21025@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <20160223091740.GA3830@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <20160223103253.GE5273@mwanda> <20160223120015.GA10488@wfg-t540p.sh.intel.com> <20160223133135.GF5273@mwanda> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160223133135.GF5273@mwanda> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 04:31:35PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > Blergh... You want it machine readable and I want it human readable. I Yeah. It's kind of tasting which may differ among people. I'll leave the judgments to Junio and others, and only add necessary comments to your points. > don't care so much about the cover letter but for the first patch then I > really want something minimal (one line) and human readable. > > base tree/branch: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master > base commit: afd2ff9b7e1b367172f18ba7f693dfb62bdcb2dc > base patch-id: a849260a843115dbac4b1a330d44256ee6b16d7b > base patch-subject: Linux 4.4 > base tag: v4.4 The necessary lines for the robot are base commit: base patch-id: or base tree-id: base patch-id: The "base tree-id" will be useful if the submitted patchset is based on a public (maintainer) commit. The "base patch-id" will be useful if the submitted patchset is based on another patchset someone (likely the developer himself) posted to the mailing list. > To me that looks like an unparseable wall of text. My version of that > is: > > Applies-to: afd2ff9b7e1b+ origin > > As a human all I really want to know is the tree to apply this to. If > it doesn't apply then I don't debug it, I just send an automatic note > "This doesn't apply to staging-next. Please redo." > > I think that Applies-to is a better name and also that grepping for > "^base " is less reliable than grepping for ^Applies-to. Grep reliability should be the same, if you use "^base tree-id" and "^base patch-id". If necessary, we can avoid white space by naming the keys base-tree-id and base-patch-id. > I used "origin" because that's the name in Next/Trees. The + means > private patches are applied. That's what we already do in naming the > kernel. If the + matters, then I would include a cover letter. > > I have no idea what a "base patch-id" is so that doesn't work at all. It'll come from this command man git patch-id It'll be useful if the patchset's base commit is a private one -- not in any public maintainer tree, however the developer may have posted it to LKML before. The "base patch-id" can more reliably track different versions of patches than "base patch-subject", and do not have the risk of information leaking in case it's a confidential patch. > Including the tag is just duplicative since we already have the hash. That's right. Just in case it's more human readable. > In my email, I proposed that we list all the other private patches in a > cover letter, but I think you are saying that we only need to know the > most recent private patch? Yes in test robot POV. However it's a general git feature, so I guess there will be more potential use cases and requirements. > Another idea would be to list them newest > to oldest (git log order instead of email order) in the cover letter. > > Btw, I always work against linux-next and Dave M is always getting > annoyed with me for not marking which patches go to net and which go to > net-next. I don't use git format-patch, but I will probably start using > "Applies-to: net" or "Applies-to: net-next". As for now, I see the netdev ML has the convention [PATCH net] [PATCH net-next] to tell Dave the target tree. Thanks, Fengguang