Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] doc: patch-id: explain how to map efficiently

From: Kristoffer Haugsbakk <code@khaugsbakk.name>
Date: Feb 23, 2026, 18:04 UTC
Message-ID: <af41be2a-daac-4d23-852d-61ff7e0dae6d@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F628C3EE-0600-419E-8D85-0CEA9EEA2243@gmail.com>

On Sat, Feb 21, 2026, at 03:38, Ben Knoble wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

>> Le 20 févr. 2026 à 17:31, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> a écrit :
>>
>> kristofferhaugsbakk@fastmail.com writes:
>>
>>> This is the fourth patch series for git-patch-id(1). This one focuses on
>>> emphasizing how the command is an efficient patch ID–commit mapper and
>>> how to use the patch IDs to join commits in a script.
>>>
>>> § Changes in v2
>>>
>>> • Delete temporary files at the end of the script.
>>> • Consistent footnote style: https://lore.kernel.org/git/c70adde6-e3db-4a46-bb29-a19d7aba8c7e@app.fastmail.com/
>>
>> The latest iteration of this series has seen no responses.  Is
>> everybody happy with them?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> No /further/ responses, perhaps? Unless my mail didn’t come through. I
> completely understand if my approval was not weighted particularly
> highly, though, ;)

Thanks for following this series.

I was wondering if a relatively lengthy example like that would be accepted on such a small (doc footprint) command. I was ready to drop that example patch/commit if the series didn’t move ahead.

In general *I* would like to see more examples and discussions in the docs where commands that are better used in conjunction with other Git commands and general utilities (c.f. git-commit(1), git-tag(1), ...). And in this case, this “write a script for it” command, as it was called in the linked email,[1] seemed like a good candidate.

† 1: https://lore.kernel.org/workflows/CAHk-=wiN+8EUoik4UeAJ-HPSU7hczQP+8+_uP3vtAy_=YfJ9PQ@mail.gmail.com/

It’s a bit hard to find information on this on the Web, I think, because “Git plumbing” has been SEO’ed into the silo of “here’s how you can use three Git plumbing commands to do what you can do in one Git porcelain command”.

But I also can understand if others think (maybe?) think that this would be too much verbiage.

But I see that this is in `next` now. Which I am glad to see of course.