Re: Link trailers revisited (was Re: [GIT PULL] io_uring fix for 6.17-rc5)

[<dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> (Changing the subject and aiming this at workflows.)
> 
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2025 at 11:06:01AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Sept 2025 at 10:45, Konstantin Ryabitsev
> > <konstantin@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you just want this to become a no-op, or will it be better if it's used
> > > only with the patch.msgid.link domain namespace to clearly indicate that it's
> > > just a provenance link?
> > 
> > So I wish it at least had some way to discourage the normal mindless
> > use - and in a perfect world that there was some more useful model for
> > adding links automatically.
> > 
> > For example, I feel like for the cover letter of a multi-commit
> > series, the link to the patch series submission is potentially more
> > useful - and likely much less annoying - because it would go into the
> > merge message, not individual commits.
> 
> We do support this usage using `b4 shazam -M` -- it's the functional
> equivalent of applying a pull request and will use the cover letter contents
> as the initial source of the merge commit message. I do encourage people to
> use this more than just a linear `git am` for series, for a number of reasons:

For me, as a subsystem downstream person the 'mindless' patch.msgid.link
saves me time when I need to report a regression, or validate which
version of a patch was pulled from a list when curating a long-running
topic in a staging tree. I do make sure to put actual discussion
references outside the patch.msgid.link namespace and hope that others
continue to use this helpful breadcrumb.