On Sat, Sep 06, 2025 at 01:27:04PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 03:33:14PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > > (Changing the subject and aiming this at workflows.) > > > > On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 11:06:01AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 10:45, Konstantin Ryabitsev > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Do you just want this to become a no-op, or will it be better if it's > > > > used > > > > only with the patch.msgid.link domain namespace to clearly indicate > > > > that it's > > > > just a provenance link? > > > > > > So I wish it at least had some way to discourage the normal mindless > > > use - and in a perfect world that there was some more useful model for > > > adding links automatically. > > > > > > For example, I feel like for the cover letter of a multi-commit > > > series, the link to the patch series submission is potentially more > > > useful - and likely much less annoying - because it would go into the > > > merge message, not individual commits. > > > > 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: > > > > - this clearly delineates the start and end of the series > > - this incorporates the contents cover letter that can give more info about > > the series than just individual commits *without* the need to hit the lore > > archive > > - this lets maintainers record any additional thoughts they may have in the > > merge commit, alongside with the original cover letter > > > > Obviously, we don't want to use the cover letter as-is, which is why b4 will > > open the configured editor to let the maintainer pulling in the series make > > any changes to the cover letter before it becomes the merge commit. > > I like this a lot, and just tried it, but it ends up applying the > patches from the list without my signed-off-by, which will cause > linux-next to complain when it sees that I committed patches without > that. > > Did I miss an option to `b4 shazam`? Does it need to add a -s option > like `b4 am` has?
Oh nevermind, it does support -s. It's just not documented :) let me go make a patch... thanks, greg k-h
