[U-Boot] Include patchwork patch ID in commit message?

[Bin Meng]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 06:05:01PM -0600, Joe Hershberger wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 05:15:17PM -0600, Joe Hershberger wrote:
>> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 03:08:09PM -0600, Joe Hershberger wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Tom,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm playing with the idea of including the patchwork patch ID in the
>> >> >> commit message of each commit that I apply to provide better
>> >> >> cross-reference ability.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> * Access to comments on patches
>> >> >> * Clarity on exactly which version of a patch was applied
>> >> >> * No need to search by patch subject
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Here is an example in a working branch:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-net.git;a=commit;h=48f9a0c786d0a3cbfdf45846567deaebe27a334a
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd prfer Patchwork or Patchwork-ID or something not just Patch.
>> >>
>> >> Would it be more or less compelling if it had a format similar this?
>> >>
>> >> Patchwork: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/571773/
>> >
>> > Yes.
>>
>> Are you being funny (more and less == not)? Or did you miss-read? :)
>
> Oops, yes, misread, yes, I like that.
>
>> >> >> What do you (or anyone else) think?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, I'm not a super fan of it.  For your second point, this is why I
>> >> > use bundles, mutt and a macro.  For the other points, at least I find
>> >> > google does a good job pulling up the right patch at least.
>> >>
>> >> Bundles seem awkward. Perhaps I'm just not using them effectively.
>> >> What benefit do they give you? How are they part of your workflow?
>> >
>> > OK, I'm going to delete this in a few days but here's my bundle for the
>>
>> Doesn't that mean it will very soon not be traceable exactly which
>> patch version was applied? What I was proposing would mean that the
>> commit message could continue to refer back to the patch even if
>> archived.
>
> It means the the link I gave for the bundle will be gone.  The patches
> will be there, but I will also move them from Under Review to Accepted.
>
>> > last import I did:
>> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/bundle/trini/2016-01-25-master-imports/
>> > My flow is:
>> > 1) Assign all unassigned patches
>> > 2) Open my todo list in patchwork
>> > 3) Create a bundle with all of the patches I want based on my critera at
>> > the time.
>> > 4) Download bundle as mbox, git am -3 it, get big build going.
>> > 5) Open each patch link, check for Nak/Changed/Uncertanty that I missed
>> > at first
>> > 6) Assuming no repeats of part 4 of the cycle, mutt -f the bundle, for
>> > each email group reply, run macro to insert applied message, postponed
>> > 7) Check output from big build, assuming good results, push and spam out
>> > all of my queued messages.
>>
>> Gotcha. Thanks!
>>
>> I'm trying to improve my workflow now, and this Patch tag was
>> something that came out of it. It's not required for the workflow, but
>> it is free to do within it. It has the potential to slightly simplify
>> one possible workflow, so no big deal.
>>
>> If people think it will be simply noise, I'll leave it out.
>>
>> I think this may speed up cross-referencing. Seemed like a good thing.
>
> My concern is that since it's not injected by patchwork already I would
> have to add it to each commit.  Today, unless I need to either make
> something apply or do a minor fixup to the contents, I don't modify any
> commit message, so my git am is it.

Does it make sense to enhance patchwork to inject such link into the
commit automatically? It can also be a project configuration option so
that other projects tracked by patchwork can turn it on on their
needs.

Regards,
Bin