From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AAA4FC0A for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2025 04:26:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760588819; cv=none; b=frumXIKXoyAs1ChYpSaxoj4O41k9o3eJoqpYCiXiXxarq1OawEfFML+zjXQQUvhU9EKF1cS0cNR30bkTvt4fE8YSfpNm8MPBERqlSvEx09rAXk/EIaEHVYhWWhU295Ez81WIKJjTTd6wjPbOWmPmL2YNUa1tRzd2tdBTF3w9Gdo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760588819; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YM8HBzK41jqB70gUudqNh4Mz8qMC4trWpngSWaPFvEs=; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=YGyGfTPBjZJnk3HMJej0CFL2XKVUVPZIxio2fln/mB9Un9P9VpGg1liXwHmbM+v3ADhfVeadV76NhP4nxfsKipvgiRZ0fk8d3ts+COqBKTbeZndiKsEozZaznbPrvH6WdWsk5qeZTfgE/R76HlKB9Zui56CEMRHRszPKmO2CPyA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=OlclBE+z; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="OlclBE+z" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DE7CC116B1 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2025 04:26:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1760588818; bh=YM8HBzK41jqB70gUudqNh4Mz8qMC4trWpngSWaPFvEs=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From; b=OlclBE+z97T/3/lpj2Yssxba1DmJDty4afxc20lqf6h0AnLTaVOXVpFsgYCeT8yOF Yc4EDpDWPkHjT7Yi9ppaUb+AlyvH83AExWXEgP5fJuAvrrQ+FFeddPzfR4WHHwA9iQ aEd49j6uZDXXjJsGcNkaZCii6tHJyo8Rfx559OqnNhOY5qw84oBvbMn/EiW9txsG5B 4z7X96B/4ZlZtb1qoG9fzZSnM4qf39QcUQ0KEq1yyqcAsQewLVRdnaLhsGc+vSVuB7 1jwu9pBMPW7u8WUOhsmiAT7DiQaQyErcmvF2qCLuM55nWcbeyJcv9Ja4bgZQBzbAuP HTd+bj5UNVVKw== Received: by mail-lj1-f171.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-36a6a3974fdso2438821fa.0 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 21:26:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVd8OMl+NH6J1TkXFyqRlXVleCE6Qf7dP7Uo4pHzWgR+eDytSGrfWqf+TBOixJzECL8gdadZ6rX@lists.linux.dev X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yyz/ywsqbUUonjUBKLBRPmIG2u2C4bVXsi1HrDYligaB/yYlxLR rQ4piWPBt9H6KQLicNhKH/9N5knQvrHnMTUQHVhs3B0oY2Dylkay4LMx0UsVnN8RF8GWyGOnyqB 3GR7Ri207BApvRO+W5d8AbkbCZIWarEA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFilhJV8hkCo8AX/0EuN1rChGdxmiJFEI4exUUrggyun0gJIptnNACU9zdc3KewKPszslAJ5xyGjjLcWEKTvR8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:12c3:b0:373:a584:8a62 with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-37609f4bc7fmr91054851fa.43.1760588816908; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 21:26:56 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <68ee73dcd10ee_2f89910075@dwillia2-mobl4.notmuch> <2025101448-overtake-mortality-99c8@gregkh> <68efd54da845e_2f89910071@dwillia2-mobl4.notmuch> <20251015-versed-active-silkworm-bb87bd@lemur> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: wens@kernel.org From: Chen-Yu Tsai Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 12:26:44 +0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: X-Gm-Features: AS18NWAatwHRttEy5AsSO8SONunkEB-qYg2kwxTPE_U2gyc3UUjRfVb7EXdwK0Q Message-ID: Subject: Re: Replacing Link trailers To: Doug Anderson Cc: Linus Torvalds , Konstantin Ryabitsev , dan.j.williams@intel.com, Greg KH , James Bottomley , "ksummit@lists.linux.dev" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 6:51=E2=80=AFAM Doug Anderson wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 12:17=E2=80=AFPM Linus Torvalds > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 15 Oct 2025 at 12:15, Linus Torvalds > > wrote: > > > > > > (The above script is "tested" in that I verified that yes > > > > .. premature 'hit send' situation. That should have said > > > > ..that yes] I verified that it superficially works, but didn't do > > anything exhaustive. > > > > It was obviously meant as a "look, you can do things like this", not > > as a real fully fleshed out solution. > > Just to be clear: this doesn't solve my problem because it relies on > _everyone else_ to change in a way that's much more complicated for > them. As Mark said, the person that needs to reference the "Link:" tag > (me / others replying here) is not the same as the person who needs to > add the "Link:" tag (maintainer). It was hard enough to convince > maintainers to make a tiny change to their workflow to add the "Link:" > tag in the first place. Convincing maintainers to add a complicated > git hook that only adds the link tag if it happens that the commit > "git patch-id" they're going to push doesn't match anything on the > mailing list? Yeah, no. To add to that, this works precisely because the Link tag is added "mindlessly" and "automatically" by b4 at the time the patch is applied, pointing to the patch that was actually applied. If the maintainer edits the commit, then they would add more notes in square bracket form. Adding the Link tag requires almost no extra effort from the maintainer if they are already using b4, except maybe configuring it to use "patch.msgid.link" instead of "lore.kernel.org". As many people have already said, the tag benefits not the maintainer that applied the patch and added the tag, but other developers that end up having to trace the history of a commit, be it for reporting regressions or backporting / maintaining downstream or stable kernel trees. For reporting regressions the Link tag is very straightforward: one bisects to a certain commit, writes an email replying to the given Message-Id, and that's it. The person may optionally click on the link, find that someone else has already reported the issue, and can either just go about their own business, or add another report on top of it. I've been on both sides, and I can say that the tag provides value to people's workflows. ChenYu > Given the number of people who have continued to reply to this thread > after the commit-hook suggestion you provided, I'm going to assume > that others agree that the git commit-hook is not a good solution to > the problem we're all trying to solve. > > -Doug >