On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 3:49 AM Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@xxxxxx> wrote: > one argument against change-id trailers is that they are eye sores, in > particular in small projects that don't use trailers otherwise. this is > in fact a common argument against even optional use of gerrit for > reviews. having a more "subtle" implementation in git upstream would > certainly alleviate this. > At one point, the driver team I work for wanted to include Change-Id trailers to commits we submitted to the Linux kernel, for tracking against our own database (we used Gerrit at the time). They were rejected for this very reason of being an eye sore -- (possibly other reasons as well, I can't recall the full discussion). Of course, if they aren't in the commit message but instead a header, it would have needed some other way to specify them in emailed patch form if we wanted them to stick around when using the am-based workflows.
