From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.zytor.com (terminus.zytor.com [198.137.202.136]) (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 57428285C84 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2025 19:36:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760384185; cv=none; b=sd0MKewy3avdgU1QWF6Q6iUubZBBnXCjYIzw+IZOOHvvOeTWTLzgpk6btcnUuxqM/sVBVr1fRXVCl7SCmh5pqjrVadh/2KnkZcEkayhPkGcxqWEHwjGoOHR4OgBjFGykRrG9Rmg37lm+/SQsXdIhVJjYCY4mRl4W28tRSwReM+g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760384185; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oVuzmLmc5stGDoMGXHSFjhNgpZtUAmp/I70jog/+pls=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=qf3efLs6bDgwfke1eQTO6nN3xE7qwzyDdou9FH48lBNxM/93yc0AfSx2JvTilV2pJvX+MaszjEcU8mvjZtQp/NveTb/u5ajzUCmOxO+uDrsxNbEsyI6HCi+trLyb+hRehZd1jRl2IMB52+hqjFH+Vnrhxr0cySEQf7Ba286kKiM= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com; dkim=fail (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b=a1K59qDx reason="signature verification failed"; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.137.202.136 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=zytor.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=zytor.com header.i=@zytor.com header.b="a1K59qDx" Received: from [IPV6:2601:646:8081:9484:201e:bc0f:a7c6:ca8d] ([IPv6:2601:646:8081:9484:201e:bc0f:a7c6:ca8d]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.zytor.com (8.18.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 59DJaIVE1439393 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 13 Oct 2025 12:36:18 -0700 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.zytor.com 59DJaIVE1439393 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zytor.com; s=2025092201; t=1760384179; bh=u3YcXghwZQJJ9c8uOF03nviutGIQJoEAwSWWcds+noo=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=a1K59qDxNUYKDPtrhAPUIa1E5FFMge+fPbuhKkDgnYZDxoOBWIFu5WEpwlgqTZaT3 JfVkEzJ8U/SJuVyuE49Hdp3854h12s9fTe3A7zJbgUfda/0Q3TcZM4/AGWtmQHX8Js HD7E5stf83hh498i6c30aZ3CPYASeGizTl10PW+Cj0I0UXs2z3BunF0JEiGAuNA8tE hK88iT+TM5HsTrDh4+c8xa2NQVytlUlD2T2o+yrqa67FdtKzjmtXOECgz6BwNrrBsM k2BVrZwDOrcxMM9cV90mFL1vtea16DFWJGseWdTga3wkzXcJsRp6UXFrr4owLuKhUk 0N0X4PGd7vbeg== Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2025 12:36:13 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Replacing Link trailers To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" , Steven Rostedt , James Bottomley , Doug Anderson , "ksummit@lists.linux.dev" References: <20251013133913.015f253b@gandalf.local.home> <20251013175031.GJ354523@mit.edu> <7EE2713D-7612-4EAC-9E4E-225A92FEC9D3@zytor.com> Content-Language: en-US, sv-SE From: "H. Peter Anvin" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2025-10-13 12:20, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 at 12:07, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> >> This was the *original* definition that I proposed, which was vetoed by Linus because it didn't provide a clickable experience. > > Yeah., I still don't believe that Message-ID is any better than a link. > > And the only believable argument *for* this all is the "one-click experience". > > Because I still believe that "if you use tools, then 'b4 dig' is > better than *any* pointless tag that just is entirely redundant and > only cuts down on the available information". > > So the one-click argument actually resonates with me, even if that is > very obviously not the workflow I use. At least I *understand* that > argument. > > All the other arguments seem just disingenuous in that they literally > give less useful information than "b4 dig" does. > > "more noise for less information" is not a good argument in my book. > And I very much agree with you -- see my other reply. -hpa