Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] doc: patch-id: explain how to map efficiently

On Sat, Feb 21, 2026, at 03:38, Ben Knoble wrote:

quoted

Le 20 févr. 2026 à 17:31, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] a écrit :

kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com writes:

quoted

This is the fourth patch series for git-patch-id(1). This one focuses on
emphasizing how the command is an efficient patch ID–commit mapper and
how to use the patch IDs to join commits in a script.

§ Changes in v2

• Delete temporary files at the end of the script.
• Consistent footnote style: https://lore.kernel.org/git/c70adde6-e3db-4a46-bb29-a19d7aba8c7e@app.fastmail.com/ (local)

The latest iteration of this series has seen no responses.  Is
everybody happy with them?

Thanks.

No /further/ responses, perhaps? Unless my mail didn’t come through. I
completely understand if my approval was not weighted particularly
highly, though, ;)

Thanks for following this series.

I was wondering if a relatively lengthy example like that would be
accepted on such a small (doc footprint) command. I was ready to drop
that example patch/commit if the series didn’t move ahead.

In general *I* would like to see more examples and discussions in the
docs where commands that are better used in conjunction with other Git
commands and general utilities (c.f. git-commit(1), git-tag(1),
...). And in this case, this “write a script for it” command, as it was
called in the linked email,[1] seemed like a good candidate.

† 1: https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/CAHk-=wiN+8EUoik4UeAJ-HPSU7hczQP+8+_uP3vtAy_=YfJ9PQ@mail.gmail.com/ (local)

It’s a bit hard to find information on this on the Web, I think, because
“Git plumbing” has been SEO’ed into the silo of “here’s how you can use
three Git plumbing commands to do what you can do in one Git porcelain
command”.

But I also can understand if others think (maybe?) think that this would
be too much verbiage.

But I see that this is in `next` now. Which I am glad to see of course.