From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-ed1-f49.google.com (mail-ed1-f49.google.com [209.85.208.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6A271C6FFA for ; Sat, 6 Sep 2025 19:19:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.49 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757186402; cv=none; b=HVaz/mkWGhUI59kYjyoXenB0D7uPIgq70gJ94whJPysTsCnG9TY8s+IZ9U7qv3oNgTweRRJtc+jcdJKbk4v/9K4rCon5HsWhRoR8b7YIzE2S/CFfXRR2FDutrBwkrNhYfUN+9AsbalhxkLutQkByh9Nnze7mAU7RPpP6XEmMZV4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757186402; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hYHMszme6h8QbWvH4Ei1/na8KCiKNvcEeq5inZjAvsY=; h=MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=NKp/QjyYr3LxFlFJ1w6EkCTsEXnRecy6hokJt6FZ0SOrf9aZS6vUjykS2NGOLaycMP/dYOAvv3ggyKX7V+icDVmV479XuMlDOzPQECljslird7xSc8FX5/SSbhN8Ig1/8JogsxVH9aV9Yb8+6vnXQL65XgJ03YTdhaXVmiTYtZk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxfoundation.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b=SEn6geXo; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.208.49 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxfoundation.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux-foundation.org header.i=@linux-foundation.org header.b="SEn6geXo" Received: by mail-ed1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-6263d0e4b94so714807a12.3 for ; Sat, 06 Sep 2025 12:19:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; t=1757186398; x=1757791198; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=3PsyEfWtapZbpxI5NrN12+zjKIm+vlmcngHXhUnlngY=; b=SEn6geXo6NEI0kTydICvi4YBt6VRowVpdJdLBq2c4Iaz5MU/7edhptiabNtSF6eMRz SZnrKqppZZvOudSqcVcyBDrCFUCKTSseAMrwA16rOfL0xNqD7Lq9d/vgVCkhwAlEKK0/ WGA5EYcxMuvjdISC+nM86QXz0tz6+OUVlQtLc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1757186398; x=1757791198; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=3PsyEfWtapZbpxI5NrN12+zjKIm+vlmcngHXhUnlngY=; b=mNIQiBH++chJylWUyUWgwkUhg8TMQaFvvTXbrxna2ePWvAura1VNen157fWp9zp5xt +pstFBooTkhnSxcHuprWgrplqhyBpXp/855C9qy+FL15UnOt3Ynoxo0WrS06zLth6q0t B8Jckwh2IQ/tVhCTvI85ZVzUL/37A1pUdEoZcDZh/aqfUnuL6V5Vw4HUU5/zlX94gIbE DwqmAuwjPOGFfu4UUNhHxKqGykUC/16TtFPoIJLFCCZNJROGrUGEXVg8CrRPJNZaqa3I T/lmGRDSDk90MOrWzmB3hAPfkv2MK0DtpRrCiY0eA9aYPxzxlef2iE6pUKJ4+dBejnwh bjlA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVzBHFmxyf8rpWz54n9NU/CckRj9NihkhE/mkjFZDn7WsTvy68N3uA13hS1Uq0JYm5THOTQA8KNZa0=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yzt/yEkcPiBQ9Yqd4JGWVUDuLPKV8XOi6TU7hemAV+sVdcoDf/r 8rP8WPa83CvIVIAxFVOXWFR5a7pyIqkGlVJI/NvbBOH4nv7u8E3/2lDL30aSype2e2p+gfVy9Ry sj19ZVzs= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncs1JgrBK+Q5z16WdIU60suvsqJlm46mH+ET67yajWkdaUFMwUSO0qAAb9J46mb mMcb1zFI0XjBx7gnlyxO63JhxjOiaftgW8VXHaSQh460cPL4OfkyM/HXu6YIpAdbSZwbiAOCGXz 8yiDO1RyeRJWOPkbI2yeHq846Eh0hCGRItpX80dSaniRtFwEtpJS3y8SxlH53Z5M+05yORLOHIj crp9iEXLwhiRy95xXWXoVrBunr9ekYYrs7c/iujCr5tKyNA50cTDQz8Pd5eFSqYFy98kVSB/tam hT0UQW4tIkAsVvp+p/7nPBC+lXS4vcc0d7MGPIrZ7vRMhWtnO52JfHWoDHRad1xjb8JdGcsioZJ LoHW4lbZfqK6eLoUV3uTYxwfWdY8dy8f1Yu8ux1oHQp9CYyqbV8oV5PRIIidgiu7mAX/zW7Mk X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFERvLmfWgY+Usx0eXy2dKeTSCDh9cw20RH6sqHJg8s9/szpeLdFRL6+7mUhir6lOaQlthgtw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:348e:b0:625:903:14b0 with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-62509031707mr2189690a12.26.1757186397887; Sat, 06 Sep 2025 12:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ed1-f51.google.com (mail-ed1-f51.google.com. [209.85.208.51]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-625ef80347asm1114893a12.1.2025.09.06.12.19.55 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 06 Sep 2025 12:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f51.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-61d7b2ec241so3770005a12.0 for ; Sat, 06 Sep 2025 12:19:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW8EHjF75Lxnrl+k4BbreZYt68oAzIe9+8a5VVGiVXF8rQRmTLZX/lJwm4dKwSzJz4xilUanIYLffc=@vger.kernel.org X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1c10:b0:b04:1a80:35b9 with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-b04b13cd575mr276185666b.12.1757186395623; Sat, 06 Sep 2025 12:19:55 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <9ef87524-d15c-4b2c-9f86-00417dad9c48@kernel.dk> <20250905-lovely-prehistoric-goldfish-04e1c3@lemur> <20250905-sparkling-stalwart-galago-8a87e0@lemur> <2025090614-busily-upright-444d@gregkh> <20250906-almond-tench-of-aurora-3431ee@lemur> <20250906-macho-reindeer-of-certainty-ff2cbb@lemur> In-Reply-To: <20250906-macho-reindeer-of-certainty-ff2cbb@lemur> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2025 12:19:38 -0700 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: X-Gm-Features: AS18NWCb9_SlpOIYL1sw9Hdpl73ZkQWu1tJwuck0jHTJiMgA7QLGMXslNk_Anb4 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Link trailers revisited (was Re: [GIT PULL] io_uring fix for 6.17-rc5) To: Konstantin Ryabitsev Cc: Greg KH , Jens Axboe , Caleb Sander Mateos , io-uring , workflows@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Sat, 6 Sept 2025 at 11:50, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > > The primary consumer of this are the CI systems, though, like those that plug > into patchwork Yes, for a CI, it makes sense to try to have a fixed base, if such a base exists. But for that case, when a base exists and is published, why aren't those people and tools *actually* using git then? That gets rid of all the strangeness - and inefficiency - of trying to recreate it from emails. So I'd rather encourage people to have git branches that they expose, if CI is the main use case. For an example of how to do this right, look at what Al does. Recent patch series posted at https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250906090738.GA31600@ZenIV/ is a good example, and notice Al saying: Branches are in git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git #work.path and git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs.git #work.f_path resp.; individual patches in followups. in the cover letter. In other words: if the series was exported from a git tree and you have a base to use, why would it *EVER* be sane to then use 'b4 shazam' to get it? So I think what 'b4 shazam' _should_ be looking at is when Greg says "I like this a lot". I think it should aim for supporting maintainers that apply patch series as part of their workflow, not at CI tools that have the WRONG workflow. And yes, maybe fixing the CI tool workflow then involves having people who post patch series post the git branch too. I often find the git branches nicer for walking through some patch series anyway. But it goes both ways: for short series, since I'm in the MUA, just walking through five or six patches and replying to them is simpler, for longer series that do more involved things, I find doing a "git fetch" and then using git tooling to look at particular _parts_ of the series can be a lot more powerful. In fact, for long series that get reposted, just to not mess up my mailbox I would generally prefer to just see the git branch over some 50-email patch bomb. Maybe *that* would be a good addition for 'b4', where you can reply to just the cover letter and say "Ack for this series" or explicitly reply to particular patches - that might not even have been posted - by mentioning their commit IDs. That's my workflow much of the time, see for example https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHk-=wgZEkSNKFe_=W=OcoMTQiwq8j017mh+TUR4AV9GiMPQLA@mail.gmail.com/ where I basically went through the series, and then replied to individual patches. I do like the "reply to individual patches" - even when I might actually have looked at them in git - just because then I can quote the part I reacted to. So I do think posting the patches makes sense as long as it's not some excessive patch-bomb, but at the same time I do know that a lot of patch series end up being of the type where possibly dozens of people get cc'd, but only on the one or two patches that are relevant to them. And then the git workflow *really* shines, because it gets you that context (and lots of people object to getting tens or hundreds of patches in email when only one or two are relevant to them). Linus