On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 11:48:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 09:18:56AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Thanks to the "cover for iteration N is a direct response for > > iteration N-1" and "cover is marked as [PATCH 0/$n]" conventions, > > Even if the cover for iteration N isn't a reply-to the cover for > interation N-1, b4 will search based on the subject line for a cover > letter with higher version number, and this mostly works. Note, that we try to use the series change-id for this, if we find it. We only fall back to matching by subject (+author) if that's not present. > My one (admittedly minor) pain point is where someone replies to a > patch series with something like "you should really also fix FOO", and > then someone replies with a single patch (without a cover letter, > possibly created with git; possibly not) that addresses issue FOO. > > This can confuse "b4 am -c" into thinking that the patch to address > FOO was in fact a newer version of the patch being reviewed. It's not > a big deal; I can deal with this manually. But having a patch set ID > would help with this. I'm not sure there's ever going to be a clear "do what I mean" solution here. We try to pick the most common course of action in such case, which is to assume that it's a quick followup bugfix for the patch. > I'd also love if lore.kernel.org and maybe b4 also had an automatic > way to get at the older versions of the patch series, and the patch > set ID would help with the automation. You can, for patches sent with b4 that contain change-id. E.g.: https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=changeid%3A20250313-a4-a5-reset-6696e5b18e10 https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/?q=changeid%3A20250313-try_with-cc9f91dd3b60 -K
