Re: [GIT PULL] virtio: last minute fixup

[Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>]

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 11:23:11AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 5:24 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > A last minute fixup of the transitional ID numbers.
> > Important to get these right - if users start to depend on the
> > wrong ones they are very hard to fix.
> 
> Hmm. I've pulled this, but those numbers aren't exactly "new".
> 
> They've been that way since 5.14, so what makes you think people
> haven't already started depending on them?
> 
> And - once again - I want to complain about the "Link:" in that commit.
> 
> It points to a completely useless patch submission. It doesn't point
> to anything useful at all.
> 
> I think it's a disease that likely comes from "b4", and people decided
> that "hey, I can use the -l parameter to add that Link: field", and it
> looks better that way.
> 
> And then they add it all the time, whether it makes any sense or not.
> 
> I've mainly noticed it with the -tip tree, but maybe that's just
> because I've happened to look at it.
> 
> I really hate those worthless links that basically add zero actual
> information to the commit.
> 
> The "Link" field is for _useful_ links. Not "let's add a link just
> because we can".

For what it's worth, as someone who is frequently tracking down and
reporting issues, a link to the mailing list post in the commit message
makes it much easier to get these reports into the right hands, as the
original posting is going to have all relevant parties in one location
and it will usually have all the context necessary to triage the
problem. While lore.kernel.org has made it much easier to find patch
postings with the "all" list and the search syntax that public-inbox
offers, it is simpler to just import the thread with 'b4 mbox' using the
link directly.

However, I do agree that it should be easier for people to tell whether
or not the link is additional context or information or just a link to
the original patch posting on the mailing list. Perhaps there should be
a new tag like "Archived-at:", "Posted-at:", or "Submitted-at:" that
makes this clearer?

Cheers,
Nathan