Subject: Re: Semantics of change IDs (Re: Gerrit, GitButler, and Jujutsu projects collaborating on change-id commit footer)

From: "Remo Senekowitsch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 03:15:28 +0200

On Wed Apr 23, 2025 at 2:32 AM CEST, Nico Williams wrote:
> 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_?

You can stuff as much free-form metadata into the commit message as you
want, because git itself doesn't care much about what's in there. The
better analogy would be to put the names of your mom and dad in the
"parent" header as a free-form piece of metadata about the heritage of
the commit author. That's gonna break stuff.

Putting any sort of unrelated metadata into a change-id breaks how it
works. There is no reason to do it, you can put that metadata in its
own, dedicated place. If not the commit message, then at least in its
own header.