On 01/22/20 20:07, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jan 2020 18:56:47 +0000 > Alex Bennée <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Laszlo Ersek <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On 01/22/20 13:30, Alex Bennée wrote: >>>> >>>> Stefan Hajnoczi <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>>> Around 66% of qemu.git commits since v4.1.0 include a Message-Id: tag. >>>>> Hooray! >>>>> >>>>> Message-Id: references the patch email that a commit was merged from. >>>>> This information is helpful to anyone wishing to refer back to email >>>>> discussions and patch series. >>>> >>>> So I guess the ones that don't are maintainer originated patches unless >>>> you actively rebuild your trees from a posted series? >>> >>> I *think* this should not be a huge problem process wise: >>> >>> Assuming that a maintainer does not include their own patches in a PULL >>> request for Peter until the same patches receive R-b/A-b/T-b feedback >>> from other list subscribers, the maintainer will want to rebase the >>> patches at least once anyway, in order to pick up those lines. >> >> Oh I always do a re-base as I apply the r-b/t-b tags. But that is >> working off my tree and a bunch of references to the emails with the >> appropriate tags in them. >> >> So which Message-Id should I use. The first time the patch was posted to >> the list or the last time it was? > > From the last one? I mean, I'll pick the last incarnation if I apply > someone else's patches, as well?
I think so as well -- pick the IDs from those messages of yours that another maintainer would apply with git-am. (BTW I've had another thought -- git-send-email prints the message IDs it generates while sending the emails, so one could pick those up with a git-rebase/reword right after posting, too.) Thanks, Laszlo > > [I just add the id right before I send my 'queued' email.] >
