Hi Steven,

On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 11:27 PM Steven Rostedt [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 12:42:11 -0400
Konstantin Ryabitsev [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+     A similar approach was attempted before as part of a different
+     effort [1], but the initial implementation caused too many
+     regressions [2], so it was backed out and reimplemented.
+
+     Link: https://lore.kernel.org/some-msgid@here # [1]
+     Link: https://bugzilla.example.org/bug/12345  # [2]
+
+   When using the ``Link:`` trailer to indicate the provenance of the
+   patch, you should use the dedicated ``patch.msgid.link`` domain. This
+   makes it possible for automated tooling to establish which link leads
+   to the original patch submission. For example::
+
+     Link: https://patch.msgid.link/patch-source-msgid@here

Hmm, I mentioned this in the other thread, but I also like the fact
that my automated script uses the list that it was Cc'd to. That is, if
it Cc'd linux-trace-kernel, if not, if it Cc'd linux-trace-devel, it
adds that, otherwise it uses lkml. Now, I could just make the lkml use
the patch-source-msgid instead.

This does give me some information about what the focus of the patch
was. Hmm, maybe I could just make it:

  Link: https://patch.msgid.link/patch-source-msgid@here # linux-trace-devel

Would anyone have an issue with that?

Or, just like with lore links:

    https://patch.msgid.link/linux-trace-devel/patch-source-msgid@here

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds