On Wed Apr 23, 2025 at 12:51 AM CEST, Nico Williams wrote: > > Using ticket IDs as change IDs implies a globally unique ID assigner, > and should work well enough where things like bugzilla are used. This email thread contains recurring ideas of stuffing unrelated metadata into the change-id header (patch-id, ticket-id). I think we should be careful not to do that. The purpose of the proposed change-id is to identify and track how a change evolves over time. We have talked about how those semantics may or may not be clear enough, and that's a good thing to discuss. It's also a good thing to discuss potential alternatives. E.g. "If we have a patch-id, we don't need a change-id." I don't agree with that, but it's a good thing to discuss. But _deriving a change-id from_ a patch-id or ticket-id or whatever completely destroys its purpose of tracking how a change evolves over time. The change-id can only do that job if it _doesn't_ have other unrelated semantics attached to it. A patch can contain multiple changes. A ticket can be associated with multiple changes. Deriving a change-id from either of them makes it impossible to identify and track a single change. So let's avoid mixing these concepts and talk about them as distinct alternatives.
