On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 10:10 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> And most definitely not just random data that can be trivially
> auto-generated after-the-fact.
Put another way: when people asked for change ID's and I said "we have
links", I by no means meant that "you can just add random worthless
links to commits".
For example, if you have a (public-facing) Gerrit system that tracks a
patch before it gets committed, BY ALL MEANS add a link to that as the
"change ID" that you tracked in Gerrit.
That's a Link: that actually adds *information*. It shows some real
history to the commit, and shows who approved it and when, and gives
you all the Gerrit background.
But a link to the email on lkml that just contains the patch and the
same commentary that was introduced into the commit? Useless garbage.
It adds no actual information.
THAT is my argument. Why do people think I'm arguing against the Link:
tag? No. I'm arguing against adding links with no relevant new
information behind them.
I don't argue against links to lore. Not at all. If those links are
about the background that caused the patch, they are great. Maybe they
are to a long thread about the original problem and how to solve it.
Thats WONDERFUL.
But here's the deal: when I look at a commit that I wonder "why is it
doing this, it seems wrong" (possibly after there's been a bug report
about it, but possibly just because I'm reviewing it as part of doing
the pull), and I see a "Link:" tag, and it just points back to the
SAME DAMN DATA that I already have in the commit, then that Link: tag
not only wasn't helpful, it was ACTIVELY DETRIMENTAL and made me waste
time and just get irritated.
And if you waste my time with useless links, why would you expect me
to be supportive of that behavior?
Linus
