On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 12:33, Konstantin Ryabitsev <[email protected]> wrote: > > We do support this usage using `b4 shazam -M` -- it's the functional > equivalent of applying a pull request and will use the cover letter contents > as the initial source of the merge commit message. I do encourage people to > use this more than just a linear `git am` for series, for a number of reasons:
I think that works well for more complex series, yes. > This does create a lot more non-linear history, though. Judging from some of > my discussions on the fediverse, some maintainers are not sure if that's okay > with you. I do *not* think it makes sense for random collections of patches, or some minor two-patch series, no. But I do think it makes sense for patch series that (a) are more than a small handful of patches and (b) have some real "story" to them (ie a cover letter that actually explains some higher-level issues). Put another way: I would be unhappy if that model is used mindlessly. No "let's automatically encourage this", please. That was, I feel, the problem with "-l". For example, just looking at things that happened today on lore, something like https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/T/#t looks like it could be handled very well with that actual merge model. Just look at that cover letter: it has relevant numbers for the series, exactly the kinds of things you do *not* want in individual commit messages, but that make sense as a merge message. That said, from what I've seen, these kinds of series are often MM, and I don't think it matches the flow that Andrew tends to use. We finally got Andrew to use git fairly recently, I'm not convinced getting him to have a fancy non-linear history is in the cards. (That said, Andrew clearly deals with series internally, and his pull requests tend to actually describe things as such, so maybe he wouldn't be too annoyed by something less linear). I would worry a bit that people would use odd merge bases for this. Because one of the advantages of a linear history is that it's simpler, and in particular that you only mess up the beginning point of that linear history *once*. And yes, people do mess that up (we have a whole section about the whole "pick a good base" in the docs and people have gotten it wrong). With non-linear history, there's just more complexity and getting things wrong is easier and can be even more confusing. So while I do think do that "b4 shazam -M" can be a very good thing, I also think it's something that *definitely* needs a fair amount of forethought. It should not be some "default flow", in other words. Linus
