On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 4:50 PM Jens Axboe <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 9/9/25 8:48 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote: > > 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. > > 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_.
Well, I think that the convention associated with patch.msgid.link is clear, like for the "Fixes:" and "Cc: stable" tags. Those tags are also generally useful, but mostly in the post-development part of the process, so to speak. So, if there are no problems with adding "Fixes:" and "Cc: stable" tags, why would there be a problem with patch.msgid.link?
