[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH] patman: Use the Change-Id, version, and prefix in the Message-Id

[Doug Anderson]

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 2:05 PM Johannes Berg <johannes at sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Some comments on the actual mechanics here (vs. on the kernel list I
> picked this up from).
>
> It seems like perhaps you could increase the "count" variable. You got:
>
> 20190828132723.0.RFC.Ie6289f437ae533d7fcaddfcee9202f0e92c6b2b9 at changeid
>
> but usually patches are numbered starting from 1, not 0. Especially for
> series, it might be easier to understand if that was the same here.
>
> I'd probably also put it after the tag, so you'd have "RFC.1" instead of
> "0.RFC", I'm saying it mostly because I originally thought you somehow
> generated a timestamp with a decimal point :-)
>
> Obviously none of that really matters, but it'd be easier to understand
> (and if necessary reverse-engineer) IMHO.

I'm happy to make these changes--they seem sane to me.  NOTE that most
patches don't actually have a PREFIX but I purposely added one to this
patch to test it.  :-)  The next version will likely have a "version"
but no prefix, so with your suggestion I'll have:

datetimestring.2.1.Ie6289f437ae533d7fcaddfcee9202f0e92c6b2b9

I may add a "v" before the 2 in the next version also.  I was going to
do that but then I forgot to before I posted.  :-P  Thus:

datetimestring.v2.1.Ie6289f437ae533d7fcaddfcee9202f0e92c6b2b9

If I post v2 as an RFC also, it would be:

datetimestring.RFC.v2.1.Ie6289f437ae533d7fcaddfcee9202f0e92c6b2b9


For now I'll wait a few days before posting a v2 in case anyone wants
to provide additional feedback (or tell me that I'm a terrible person
for liking Change-Ids).


-Doug