From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (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 BE2BE2FF154 for ; Wed, 15 Oct 2025 22:01:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760565711; cv=none; b=k07YdKIo3YuCMGAcY6ObnHTz5S5pj3NRia6fDj1zAk9+RGPK1sOYmglx8zLu6MiYjhPEoykkQ0/w1SiH8V/TX69uozpDjX9Ww8INE1Us6v/5EaME8aSWLWWGVXZ/V8Z/YI5YSsSKwvW48epvoY2PKAf2ZpxOWztIPyhXDvvthzU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760565711; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Q7DHjTE6Gc5xty1yeOIwJbAizdu9YmTPyUqfsfV74QI=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=UNP8zU30v5Dpds+gInPxMlFlz4AvTnJJdfFpAnxOrjas53SUpdEFnrlf92+RhUHGy/3NTnyLaDI60fajU1eY8Lqr0vvs22zHfnYGISfbBunHzIY+HwaRzZBHzBYTumoFjuTpWeJrY+ogsFTJ7OxXzNigBJrtEQF/iM3J+Q+Do1Y= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=YARS/OO1; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="YARS/OO1" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=loe+mHjBDBPWDe4goxXdUKkOQUIqhqV6h6YwKdSaC/o=; t=1760565709; x=1761775309; b=YARS/OO1HVrYkX9pK/dGsy9sYwlvGeEizKKzkp1xXNrNemR YqiD2oxB/VUmmY1yYkMHA7Tk5VeKDIDjIBff9jHe+pUqsjSpSAIn1PK7q096Gr7B+FLxIP/3AWCl9 uwEVfwYPUueKk2U4wYxs8vvGUBlyZaUQdulmMxuvHCNUVNiOh5sMTxNzpweevP3Yx3A4qw0rfrv2q 25KaSFDxdaNYReUxU2+Y1A37puVsztsZHMUyvaowkxyZRq2i2yinK7LpNal+IozzYvJOfzNOJHgYR s8BCYayLR0fx7pLHd6cV7RvDt6KD1lOOj/UExurZfS599azopUAUv0W3pHUDYY6g==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1v99Yx-0000000F7H3-25WP; Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:01:40 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Replacing Link trailers From: Johannes Berg To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , James Bottomley , "ksummit@lists.linux.dev" Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2025 00:01:38 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20251014153521.693907a1@gandalf.local.home> References: <6b188d9e-3d47-4a30-8452-3e57e09cf8e3@efficios.com> <8572506ccdaa6211e177d5976a74737268486492.camel@sipsolutions.net> <20251014153521.693907a1@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.56.2 (3.56.2-2.fc42) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Tue, 2025-10-14 at 15:35 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 14 Oct 2025 21:12:33 +0200 > Johannes Berg wrote: >=20 > > And we're taking it away because literally *one* person thinks that it > > adds irrelevant noise. >=20 > Are you suggesting that we lost the "benevolent" in our "benevolent dicta= tor"? >=20 > ;-) So I'm supposed to be on vacation this week, but this is haunting me I guess ... I see your ";-)", but I'll respond anyway. Yes. Yes, in this particular instance I am absolutely saying that. To me, there's a sort of underlying (social) contract in all of Linux etc. - yes, we want/need Linus to enforce the things that make for unpopular reading in the press (say kicking out bcachefs for a recent example), but we also trust him to "read the room" (so to speak) and mostly at least, form an opinion informed by the rough consensus. At least that's my interpretation of how this all works. Call me deluded if you like. (Seriously, tell me, even in private messages.) Here, however, we have the exact opposite. Pretty much everyone in the threads disagrees and prefers a tag in some form (be it link, message- id, or something else), and yet Linus insists he's right to be annoyed and impose his will on everyone. Some people in the threads want to find technological workarounds for his whims, but really all those are just that: workarounds, and demonstrably don't work as well. It's not even a technical problem/discussion, if it were, we'd be reading messages that take the concerns of those people who currently rely on the link tags seriously, and try to find solutions that work for everyone. I'm sure we could think of any number of things, even encoding the message-id in the git commit object format (so it's invisible with default git log/show format) itself would probably work pretty easily. But no, instead we read all about how those people are all wrong and misguided, and how the patch that got applied isn't special [1]. In other contexts, we'd probably call this "mansplaining", but here we somehow are supposed to not only tolerate but celebrate, presumably for the great technological advancement it brings. [2] [1] seriously? even if it were posted 100 times identically, the one that got applied would be made special by the very act of being picked up by the maintainer [2] b4 dig is (probably) nice, and Linus will likely somehow manage to have it interpreted that it was because of his actions that it came about, although it really wasn't his vision but rather his pettiness that got it started. So really, I think this has become purely an ego/power dynamics thing, far detached from any practical reality. _Not_ clicking a link really isn't that difficult, and distinguishing between "I've modified a patch so it needs a link now" and "a lookup by patch-id will succeed so no link is needed" has now become fig-leaf for the naked emperor. It adds useless work for everyone, not to mention wasting server cycles to do a search and all that, all because one guy desperately needed to be right. (But yes, I'm sure that now that everyone is so entrenched, big ego will win.) 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. johannes