On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 02:24:23PM +0200, Jörg Rödel wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 11:23:11AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > And - once again - I want to complain about the "Link:" in that commit. > > I have to say that for me (probably for others as well) those Link tags > pointing to the patch submission have quite some value: > > 1) First of all it is an easy proof that the patch was actually > submitted somewhere for public review before it went into a > maintainers tree. > > 2) The patch submission is often the entry point to the > discussion which lead to this patch. From that email I can > see what was discussed and often there is even a link to > previous versions and the discussions that happened there. It > helps to better understand how a patch came to be the way it > is. I know this should ideally be part of the commit message, > but in reality this is what I also use the link tag for. > > 3) When backporting a patch to a downstream kernel it often > helps a lot to see the whole patch-set the change was > submitted in, especially when it comes to fixes. With the > Link: tag the whole submission thread is easy to find. > > I can stop adding them to patches if you want, but as I said, I think > there is some value in them which make me want to keep them. > > Regards, > > Joerg Yea, me too ... Linus, will it be less problematic if it's a different tag, other than Link? What if it's Message-Id: <foo@bar>? Still a problem? -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
