On 9/9/25 16:42, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > 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
Yes, and the PR that started this thread had a normal lore link. Would it have been different with a patch.msgid.link as perhaps Linus would not try opening it and become disappointed? You did kinda ask that early in the thread but then the conversation went in different directions. > 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 >
