On 2/26/19 1:15 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> The Message-id identifies the patch e-mail. It makes finding the review >>> thread easier and more reliable. It's also a valid key on Patchew[*]. >> >> I find the tag valuable enough in later git searches that I don't mind >> feeding my own patches back through the mailing list to add it (patchew >> helps with that, of course). But for it to become mandatory, we'd need >> to enhance scripts/checkpatch.pl to enforce it. > > I'm afraid checkpatch is the wrong place. When you submit v1 patches > for review, there is no Message-id. Even for respins, we don't want > one. It should be added when patches get applied for real, so the > commit carries exactly one Message-id, and it refers back to the final > version on the list.
Indeed, I wasn't thinking about how it would work. checkpatch.pl can filter for 'PULL' being in a subject line, as that will not affect normal submissions, but there is no guarantee that it will mesh with the workflows of the various maintainers. > > Two ideas: > > * Have Patchew flag pull requests lacking Message-id Yes, that works, as well as patching Peter's sanity-checking script to do likewise. > > * Admittedly vague: some kind of git pre merge hook magic to make > git-merge flag missing Message-id I'm not sure if Peter has his sanity-checker script plugged in via git hooks or some other way. https://git.linaro.org/people/peter.maydell/misc-scripts.git/ if someone wants to propose a patch to it. -- Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3226 Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
