Re: In defense of Link (was Re: [b4] initial "b4 dig" to supplant Link: trailers)

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

Thanks Linus!
One note:

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 10:00:01AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

...
> Because we *HAVE* automated information that is already sufficient.
> Every single commit already fundamentally has sufficient information
> to find the submission if it was to a lore-tracked mailing list:
> 
>  - patch ID
> 
>  - commit date
> 
>  - subject line and patch date (note: maybe from the email, maybe in
> the body of the email)
> 
>  - author name and email (note again: might be the email 'from', but
> might well be the 'body of the email' From: line)


Well I for one would often ask the contributor to repost
modifying just the commit message.

The only thing distinguishing posts then is the date?
Doesn't it seem somewhat fragile, to rely on date?

E.g. thinkably someone can post an old version of my patch (e.g. include
in their patchset) and at the same time I happen to
post one with an updated commit log.
Now what?


As a maintainer, I also sometimes squash two patches together, what then?




-- 
MST