On Tue, Sep 09, 2025 at 09:40:54AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Because if it's in a mindless script, then dammit, the lore "search"
> function is objectively better after-the-fact. Really. Using the lore
> search gives the original email *and* more.

That's not been my experience, especially now that b4 exists - my actual
workflow for this stuff is to pull the message ID out of the patch and
feed that to b4 mbox, then fire up mutt to look at the mbox.  That mbox
will have the whole thread, not just the individual message.

> Now do this:

>     firefox https://lore.kernel.org/all/?q=$(git rev-parse e9eaca6bf69d^2)

> and see how *USELESS* and completely redundant a link would have been?
> IT'S RIGHT THERE, FOR CHRISSAKE!

> That search is guaranteed to find the pull request if it was properly
> formatted, because the automation of git request-pull adds all the
> relevant data that is actually useful. Very much including that top
> commit that you asked me to pull.

That works great for pull requests, but it's not so useful for a random
patch like 5f9efb6b7667043527d377421af2070cc0aa2ecd ("Input:
mtk-pmic-keys - MT6359 has a specific release irq").  In that case the
subject line is reasonably unique but still gets me three revisions of
the series and it's a couple of clicks to get to the mbox (as it is for
the pull request) having made sure I'm going to the most recent one,
some things search picks up rather more stuff.  You get fun things like
vN being applied racing with vN+1 being posted.

> And if you have some workflow that used them, maybe we can really add
> scripting for those kinds of one-liners.

The above is my main use case for this, and I think similar for a lot of
the people working with test results - I have a git commit, how do I
translate that into a mbox with the specific thread where the patch
resulting in that commit was posted?  For me it would be ideal if no web
browser would be needed, that's suboptimal all round.