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 > > <[email protected]> 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:
For me, as a subsystem downstream person the 'mindless' patch.msgid.link saves me time when I need to report a regression, or validate which version of a patch was pulled from a list when curating a long-running topic in a staging tree. I do make sure to put actual discussion references outside the patch.msgid.link namespace and hope that others continue to use this helpful breadcrumb.
