On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 01:47:29AM +0200, Remo Senekowitsch wrote: > 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. We, the users, have been doing this for decades by convention (i.e., starting commit subject lines with ticket IDs and putting all other related ticket IDs in the rest of the commit comment. Why would that be wrong _now_? > 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. And ticket IDs happen to be very good at being this sort of change ID. Sun did this starting in the early 90s. They used a rebase workflow at least since 1992. Folks still do this in Illumos. I'm certain that the rump Solaris engineering at Oracle still does this. That's more than three decades of that. Nico --
