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 DC291301000; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 18:54:56 +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=1757444097; cv=none; b=HW0uOASmyHHoOL0+V5Hf/LDhJTevafh1TEUUps8/8SxGz8Nv6rHqCWYT+KuIfvjtTEPZsXnORMKWKeNDpVaOy3r7vNrFgvd2A0aHPgZVZClvciQx9A5woNnuVM7lR5wZAq5DO1pBY8JA7HwZ933uUVqe9S/SYfG8eq9GtseIO28= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757444097; c=relaxed/simple; bh=jY4ZDiOqfedwHS40fQ7APUViCr1cLuPVU29y7/rD8dM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=cEwDesi0vJi9LX3oFWYPXF2f6RYE+nImEKOLOHhyQBGc21yEl9IP3Se0T2rHQAO/CQrreuU6udoTb6LUxmV9Dfehwao2tZeQcRzJ6M+GoM/DhWnIp8LlnsvUKConJq3iAfE4ZglV8KlJ6T10qG/ZPL3tNlcGLMobPThmu4uke1w= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=QBmAoIP2; 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="QBmAoIP2" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3E86AC4CEF4; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 18:54:56 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1757444096; bh=jY4ZDiOqfedwHS40fQ7APUViCr1cLuPVU29y7/rD8dM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=QBmAoIP25QwBASgbLBhCAHpGzGwWCwKhwHDX9iyEh4YOQE2iVo7duqLaHhx8COplO 3rczqoEg6pNcdQUWd9fOA4U09/Nyt3ZCnWmAKTjyGWn4cPd8jup+1yh0puvWPj4+IG iNVbloCMZQdPjEQP/9c3309bZD9o2byoKZY3Qbf0NVD66KsIj7njM97s8S4sbEDFQQ F2+7OhXmdLAHd4PxLi9T/CIK2GYXnRBPT6y7HSyrxJ7TALfxZZkPS11MK1b29SACys OOvNKREkZ/B4lK6cPQTfz5KDh/l2sFQdGOjW8Ei6sIR/C3vfVP+q7IEqztWZwxBwqJ 6I9uSdcmgqKxA== Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:54:53 -0400 From: Sasha Levin To: Jens Axboe Cc: Laurent Pinchart , konstantin@linuxfoundation.org, csander@purestorage.com, io-uring@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] b4 dig: Add AI-powered email relationship discovery command Message-ID: References: <20250905-sparkling-stalwart-galago-8a87e0@lemur> <20250909163214.3241191-1-sashal@kernel.org> <20250909172258.GH18349@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <72dd17ad-5467-49d3-9f40-054b1bf875d5@kernel.dk> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: workflows@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <72dd17ad-5467-49d3-9f40-054b1bf875d5@kernel.dk> On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 11:26:19AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >On 9/9/25 11:22 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 12:32:14PM -0400, Sasha Levin wrote: >>> Add a new 'b4 dig' subcommand that uses AI agents to discover related >>> emails for a given message ID. This helps developers find all relevant >>> context around patches including previous versions, bug reports, reviews, >>> and related discussions. >> >> That really sounds like "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks >> like a nail". The community has been working for multiple years to >> improve discovery of relationships between patches and commits, with >> great tools such are lore, lei and b4, and usage of commit IDs, patch >> IDs and message IDs to link everything together. Those provide exact >> results in a deterministic way, and consume a fraction of power of what >> this patch would do. It would be very sad if this would be the direction >> we decide to take. > >Fully agree, this kind of lazy "oh just waste billions of cycles and >punt to some AI" bs is just kind of giving up on proper infrastructure >to support maintainers and developers. This feels like a false choice: why force a pick between b4-dig-like tooling and improving our infra? They can work together. As tagging and workflows improve, those gains will flow into the tools anyway. It's like saying we should skip -rc releases because they mean we've given up on bug free code. Perfect is the enemy of the good. You're arguing against a tool that works now, just because it's not ideal, and to chase perfection instead. I'd rather be "lazy" and skip the endless lore hunts. -- Thanks, Sasha