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

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

On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 06:23:49PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 at 16:09, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
> 
> I wouldn't rely on date. That's the point. None of those emails are
> any special. Not the one that was applied, for one. Because if there
> are multipel; versions, the commentary on the *earlier* ones are
> likely as relevant - or *more* relevant - than the one that was
> applied.
> 
> The primary thing is the patch ID.

Hmm. Sorry that I'm being dense. But nowdays, e.g. the Fixes tag carries
*a lot* of weight, given how automation trusts it to know
where to backport the patch. And the description is critical because
stable maintainers trust it to make decisions on whether to backport
in the 1st place.

So let's say I have v2 applied and v1 had a different commit log but
same patch ID.  A contributor (or myself, if I forgot!) is wondering
whether I applied v2 or v1 with respect to v4 having the correct
commit log and v2 having a wrong one.

What do you suggest then, if not reading all of commit log
and also not looking at the date?

> And if you change the patch as you apply it, at that point *you*
> should point that out. And at that point, by all means say "original
> at XYZ, I changed it to do ABC".
>
> See? It's not that "Link" lines are bad. What is bad is *pointless*
> link lines that had no thought, were added by automation, and don't
> add any actual information.
> 
>             Linus

That part's clear.

-- 
MST