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.
Linus
