Re: Link trailers revisited (was Re: [GIT PULL] io_uring fix for 6.17-rc5)

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 03:33:14PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> (Changing the subject and aiming this at workflows.)
> 
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 11:06:01AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 10:45, Konstantin Ryabitsev
> > <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you just want this to become a no-op, or will it be better if it's used
> > > only with the patch.msgid.link domain namespace to clearly indicate that it's
> > > just a provenance link?
> > 
> > So I wish it at least had some way to discourage the normal mindless
> > use - and in a perfect world that there was some more useful model for
> > adding links automatically.
> > 
> > For example, I feel like for the cover letter of a multi-commit
> > series, the link to the patch series submission is potentially more
> > useful - and likely much less annoying - because it would go into the
> > merge message, not individual commits.
> 
> We do support this usage using `b4 shazam -M` -- it's the functional
> equivalent of applying a pull request and will use the cover letter contents
> as the initial source of the merge commit message. I do encourage people to
> use this more than just a linear `git am` for series, for a number of reasons:
> 
> - this clearly delineates the start and end of the series
> - this incorporates the contents cover letter that can give more info about
>   the series than just individual commits *without* the need to hit the lore
>   archive
> - this lets maintainers record any additional thoughts they may have in the
>   merge commit, alongside with the original cover letter
> 
> Obviously, we don't want to use the cover letter as-is, which is why b4 will
> open the configured editor to let the maintainer pulling in the series make
> any changes to the cover letter before it becomes the merge commit.

I like this a lot, and just tried it, but it ends up applying the
patches from the list without my signed-off-by, which will cause
linux-next to complain when it sees that I committed patches without
that.

Did I miss an option to `b4 shazam`?  Does it need to add a -s option
like `b4 am` has?

thanks,

greg k-h