Re: [PATCH] Documentation/email-clients.txt: discuss In-Reply-To

From: Steven Rostedt
Date: Thu Nov 05 2015 - 14:23:43 EST

On Thu, 5 Nov 2015 14:11:48 -0500
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 11/05/2015 01:31 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:13:01 -0400
> > Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> +When manually adding In-Reply-To: headers to a patch (e.g., using `git
> >> +send email`), use common sense to associate the patch with previous
> >> +relevant discussion, e.g. link a bug fix to the email with the bug report.
> >> +For a multi-patch series, it is generally best to avoid using
> >> +In-Reply-To: to link to older versions of the series. This way
> >> +multiple versions of the patch don't become an unmanageable forest of
> >> +references in email clients. If a link is helpful, you can use an
> >> +""; URL (e.g., in the cover email
> >> +text) to link to an earlier version of the patch series.
> > So this is sitting in my docs folder waiting to see if anybody else had
> > anything to say. Nope. I guess I'm not opposed to this addition, but
> > I'm not quite sure what problem is being solved. Is there a plague of
> > inappropriate hand-crafted In-Reply-To headers out there that I've not
> > seen?
> The "git help send-email" documentation for "--in-reply-to" suggests
> building hand-crafted In-Reply-To headers this way for subsequent
> versions of patch series. This paragraph is intended to suggest that's
> a bad idea.
> > Beyond that, this seems like advice that is better put into
> > SubmittingPatches if we really want it.
> That was my original thought, but Peter suggested email-clients.txt:

Peter said "maybe". I would think keeping this in SubmittingPatches
would be better, as that's the one place we point people to to read
(and I should re-read).

-- Steve
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at