On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 08:35:18AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On a global scale, that's quite a number of saved mailing list archive > >> searches. > > > > +1 FWIW. I also started slapping the links on all patches in a series, > > even if we apply with a merge commit. I don't know of a good way with > > git to "get to the first parent merge" so scanning the history to find > > the link in the cover letter was annoying me :( > > Like I've tried to argue, I find them useful too. But after this whole > mess of a thread, I killed -l from my scripts. I do think it's a mistake > and it seems like the only reason to remove them is that Linus expects > to find something at the end of the link rainbow and is often > disappointed, and that annoys him enough to rant about it. > > I know some folks downstream of me on the io_uring side find them useful > too, because they've asked me several times to please remember to ensure > my own self-applied patches have the link as well. For those, I tend to > pick or add them locally rather than use b4 for it, which is why they've > never had links. > > As far as I can tell, only two things have been established here: > > 1) Linus hates the Link tags, except if they have extra information > 2) Lots of other folks find them useful > > and hence we're at a solid deadlock here.
I did suggest that provenance links use the patch.msgid.link subdomain. This should clearly mark it as the source of the patch and not any other discussion. I think this is a reasonable compromise that will only mildly annoy Linus but let subsystems relying on these links continue to use them. -K
