On 9/9/25 18:40, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 9 Sept 2025 at 07:50, Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think we all know the answer to that one - it would've been EXACTLY >> the same outcome. Not to put words in Linus' mouth, but it's not the >> name of the tag that he finds repulsive, it's the very fact that a link >> is there and it isn't useful _to him_. > > It's not that it isn't "useful to me". It's that it HURTS, and it's > entirely redundant. > > It literally wastes my time. Yes, I have the option to ignore them, > but then I ignore potentially *good* links. > > Rafael asked what the difference between "Fixes:" and "Cc: stable" is > - it's exactly the fact that those do NOT waste human time, and they > were NOT automated garbage. > > The rules for those are that they have been added *thoughtfully*: you > don't add 'stable' with automation without even thinking about it, do > you? > > And if you did, THAT WOULD BE WRONG TOO. > > Wouldn't you agree?
I fully agree. Now the sad part of this example is that if one conciously decides that the bug fixed is not critical enough according to the documented stable rules, and doesn't add Cc: stable, there's a good chance the AUTOSEL automation will pick it anyway, these days with a help of LLM. > Dammit, is it really so hard to understand this issue? Automated noise > is bad noise. And when it has a human cost, it needs to go away. > > I'm not saying that you can't link to the original email. But you need > to STOP THE MINDLESS AUTOMATION WHEN IT HURTS. > > So add the link, by all means - but only add it when it is relevant > and gives real information. And THINK about it, don't have it in some > mindless script. I'd hope that distinguishing the automated links from conscious one (i.e. using the patch.msgid.link vs lore domains) would be enough to make everyone happy without hurting. But fine. > Because if it's in a mindless script, then dammit, the lore "search" > function is objectively better after-the-fact. Really. Using the lore > search gives the original email *and* more. > > The same, btw, goes for my merge messages. No, I'm not going to add > some idiotic "Link" to the original pull request email. Not only don't > I fetch those from lore to begin with, you can literally search for > them. > > Look here, for the latest merge I did of your tree: e9eaca6bf69d. Later in the thread patch-id is mentioned. I think it was mentioned in the past threads that due to small context changes due to e.g. base that the submitter used and the maintainer used to apply, and even diff algorithm not being set in stone, they can't be made fully reliable?
