Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation.org> writes:> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 3:12 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman.id.au> wrote: >> >> Which I read as you endorsing Link: tags :) > > I absolutely adore "Link:" tags. They've been great. > > But they've been great for links that are *usedful*. > > They are wonderful when they link to the original problem. > > They are *really* wonderful when they link to some long discussion > about how to solve the problem. > > They are completely useless when they link to "this is the patch > submission of the SAME DAMN PATCH THAT THE COMMIT IS".Folks wanted to add Change-Id: tags to every commit. You said we didn't need to, because we have the Link: to the original patch submission, which includes the Message-Id and therefore is a de facto change id. Links to other random places don't serve that function. cheers
On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 6:30 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman.id.au> wrote:> > Links to other random places don't serve that function.What "function"? This is my argument. Those Link: things need to have a *reason*. Saying "they are a change ID" is not a reason. That's just a random word-salad. You need to have an active reason that you can explain, not just say "look, I want to add a message ID to every commit". Here's the thing. There's a difference between "data" and "information". We should add information to the commits, not random data. And most definitely not just random data that can be trivially auto-generated after-the-fact. Linus