Re: Replacing Link trailers

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1077 bytes --]

On Wed, 2025-10-15 at 18:22 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:01:38 +0200
> Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> 
> > So yeah, circling back to "benevolent" -- for me, this has definitely
> > broken the "benevolent" part and a lot of trust. But that's fine, I can
> > also do a job that heavily resolves around following a manager's
> > arbitrary whims. But my heart won't be in it.
> 
> Yes it does appear that we all have extra work to do because one person
> doesn't like the current method. I don't think I saw anyone else complain
> about the "useless" link either.

I agree. I think we're spending a lot of time trying to reinvent
something that *was* working already.

Even when a Link: header points to a lore.kernel.org link which is a
plain one-off posting of the patch without any discussion, I *still*
find those useful at times, because I can *see* that there was no such
discussion.

And if I've now found that patch to be the cause of a regression, I
will reply to that message to *start* the discussion.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 5069 bytes --]