[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87mtfm7uag.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date:   Thu, 12 May 2022 23:30:15 +1000
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Konstantin Ryabitsev <konstantin@...uxfoundation.org>,
        KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        mie@...l.co.jp
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] virtio: last minute fixup
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 3:12 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists