Re: Link trailers revisited (was Re: [GIT PULL] io_uring fix for 6.17-rc5)

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

On 9/9/25 20:14, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sept 2025 at 11:07, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
>>
>> Later in the thread patch-id is mentioned. I think it was mentioned in the
>> past threads that due to small context changes due to e.g. base that the
>> submitter used and the maintainer used to apply, and even diff algorithm not
>> being set in stone, they can't be made fully reliable?
> 
> Yes, the patch-id is a heuristic. It's really a very good heuristic in
> practice, though.
> 
> Also, if the argument is "it might not always work", I still claim
> that "99.5% useful" is a hell of a lot better than "_maybe_ useful in
> the future, but known to be painful".
> 
> Because that's the trade-off here: people are arguing for something
> that wastes time and effort, and with very dubious use cases.
> 
> But yes: please do continue to add links to the original email - IF
> you thought about it. That has always been my standpoint. Exactly like
> "Fixes", and exactly like EVERY SINGLE OTHER THING you add to a commit
> message.

Fine, maybe b4 could help here by verifying if patch-id works on commits in
the maintainer's branch before sending a pr, and for those where it doesn't,
the maintainer can decide to add them. It sounds more useful to me than
adding anything "AI-powered" to it.