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

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 12:59:46 -0700

Jacob Keller <[email-masked]> writes:

> 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).

For something to be an eye sore, it also has to be of no use to
those who consider it an eye sore.  The signed-off-by trailer is
noisy and it becomes annoying after reading "git log --no-merges"
for a week worth of commits, but it serves useful purpose so nobody
would complain them as being an eye sore, even if they complain for
other reasons.

Why weren't they seeing any benefit of having such trailer?  Would
they have found a good use of the information if it were hidden in
the header part?

If the answer is "it is only useful to some people", what is the
reason why those other people find it useless?  Is it "our own
database" being closed and there were no federated catalog of
change-ids that can be used by all project participants?  Or does it
go beyond that, like what a Change-Id trailer means to project
participants from one organization is different to those from
another, or something?