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@xxxxxxxxxx> 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? Yes they have been in the header but they are not used by *Linux* yet. My worry is for when we start using them and then someone backports the patches without backporting the macro fix. Maybe we should just drop these until there's a user, but I am a bit wary of a step like this so late in the cycle. > 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". > > Linus OK I will stop doing this. I thought they are handy for when there are several versions of the patch. It helps me make sure I applied the latest one. Saving the message ID of the original mail in some other way would also be ok. Any suggestions for a better way to do this? -- MST
