On 9/9/25 20:14, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, 9 Sept 2025 at 11:07, Vlastimil Babka <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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? > > Yes, the patch-id is a heuristic. It's really a very good heuristic in > practice, though. > > Also, if the argument is "it might not always work", I still claim > that "99.5% useful" is a hell of a lot better than "_maybe_ useful in > the future, but known to be painful". > > Because that's the trade-off here: people are arguing for something > that wastes time and effort, and with very dubious use cases. > > But yes: please do continue to add links to the original email - IF > you thought about it. That has always been my standpoint. Exactly like > "Fixes", and exactly like EVERY SINGLE OTHER THING you add to a commit > message.
Fine, maybe b4 could help here by verifying if patch-id works on commits in the maintainer's branch before sending a pr, and for those where it doesn't, the maintainer can decide to add them. It sounds more useful to me than adding anything "AI-powered" to it.
