lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Feb]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [RFC/PATCH 1/1] format-patch: add an option to record base tree info
    Date
    Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com> writes:

    > The necessary lines for the robot are
    >
    > base commit:
    > base patch-id:
    > or
    > base tree-id:
    > base patch-id:

    I will not repeat why a commit object name would be more appropriate
    than a tree object name here (please see my response to HPA).

    > The "base tree-id" will be useful if the submitted patchset is based
    > on a public (maintainer) commit.
    >
    > The "base patch-id" will be useful if the submitted patchset is based
    > on another patchset someone (likely the developer himself) posted to
    > the mailing list.

    Is there a database of in-flight patches indexed by their patch-ids
    with a large enough coverage (hopefully those who maintain such a
    database are using the --stable version of the patch-id for indexing
    the patches)? I am wondering how well this scales, especially if a
    well-known commit named by "base commit" needs to be checked out and
    then many in-flight patches identified by "base patch-id"s need to
    be applied on top of it, to prepare the tree-ish the patch being
    evaluated can be applied to.

    This starts to sound more like something you would want to write in
    the cover letter, or the trailer block next to Signed-off-by: at the
    end of the first patch in the series. Or even after the mail
    signature at the very end of the message (incidentally that would
    probably minimize the damage to the Git codebase needed for this
    addition--you should be able to do this without touching anything
    other than builtin/log.c).


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2016-02-24 08:01    [W:4.994 / U:0.028 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site