On Tue, 13 May 2025 at 15:35, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 5/12/25 6:03 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 05:42:55PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > >> On Mon, 12 May 2025 at 17:34, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: > >>> On Mon, 12 May 2025 at 16:46, Alejandro Colomar <a...@kernel.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> contrib/ChangeLog: > >>>> > >>>> * gcc-changelog/git_commit.py (GitCommit): > >>>> Add support for 'Link:' tags. > > > >>> What is a Link: tag? I assume this is some kind of Git trailer, but > >>> what for? A URL? > > > > Yes. > > > >>> Why do we need to use a Git trailer for that instead > >>> of just putting the URL in the commit message body? > > > > I'm used to link tags. They keep the links relatively organized at one > > per line. I could add some accompanying text for each link, but that'd > > be filling text for links that are better explained by themselves when > > you open them. I think the links by themselves make for a cleaner > > commit message. (Of course, there are exceptions, and some commits need > > an explanation for links, but in this case there's no need, IMHO.) > > > >> It seems to be one of the more common trailers used in the linux > >> kernel [1], > > Hmm, I don't see it in that list. But it is described in > https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html
Sorry, I meant to link directly to this comment which has an analysis of the frequency of different trailers: https://www.reddit.com/r/git/comments/nl36wl/comment/gziw0pf/ The OP there only lists some of the amusing trailers seen only once in the kernel history. > > "If related discussions or any other background information behind the > change can be found on the web, add ‘Link:’ tags pointing to it. If the > patch is a result of some earlier mailing list discussions or something > documented on the web, point to it." > > >> Why do you "need" it for GCC? > > > > Need is too strong. I think my commit message would be nicer with them. > > I could add a paragraph for each link (or maybe several together in > > one). But even then, the link breaks the line at some weird point, and > > it reads better with a link per line. I don't know; it looks cleaner to > > me. > > Can't you put a link on its own line without adding "Link:"? > > Since these links are presumably to give context to the patch, I'd > prefer to keep them in the upper part of the commit message where that > context goes. Tags at the bottom of the commit are thus after the > ChangeLog entries, separated from the rest of the rationale. > > You can even add Link: to the links if you feel like it, as long as they > come before the ChangeLog. > > Jason >
