On Sat, Sep 06, 2025 at 08:31:59AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, 6 Sept 2025 at 06:51, Konstantin Ryabitsev > <konstan...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, `shazam -M` is not perfect, because we do need to know the > > base-commit, and there's still way too many series sent without this info. > > No, no. You're thinking about it wrong. > > An emailed patch series is *not* a git pull. If you want actual real > git history, just use git. Using a patch series and shazam for that > would be *bad*. It's actively worse than just using git, with zero > upside.
The primary consumer of this are the CI systems, though, like those that plug into patchwork. In order to be able to run a bunch of tests they need to be able to apply the patches to a tree, so, in a sense, they do need to recreate git as much as possible, including the branch point. > No, the upside of a patch series is that it's *not* fixed in stone yet > - not in history, not in acks, not in actual code. So do *not* > encourage people to think of it as some second-rate "git history" > model. It's not, and it would be *BAD* at it. b4 will tell you if a series applies cleanly to the current tree, but I don't think we make use of this with `shazam -M` -- we always try to parent it against the indicated base commit. Is the recommendation then to always try to use the latest tree and bail out if it doesn't apply? > That kind of global history would be *worse* for the whole "send > patches by email" model. > > So don't strive to replicate git - badly. Strive to do a *good* job. But people do want to replicate git, if only so they can run integration tests in a more automated fashion. If I understand correctly, you suggest two modes of operations: 1. recreate the tree exactly as the author intended, so that CI systems can run tests. 2. try to create a merge commit on top of the latest HEAD and bail if it's not working, letting the maintainer fix any conflicts on their own. > Your comment about how you want to know the base commit makes me think > you are missing the point. No, I'm mostly implementing what people tell me they'd like to see. :) Someone once told me that they really wanted to be able to treat mailed series exactly like a pull request, hence why this feature exists. You're actually the first person to say that this behaviour is not what we should be doing. -K
