On Wed, 27 Aug 2025 at 17:41, Konstantin Ryabitsev
<konstantin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. The Link: trailer is added when the maintainer
> pulls in the series into their tree.
That's my point. Adding it to the commit at that point is entirely
useless, because
(a) that email doesn't have the *reason* for the patch (or rather, if
it does, then the link to the email is pointless, since the *real*
reason was mentioned already)
(b) at that point clearly it doesn't have any *problems* associated
with it either, since if it did, it shouldn't have been included in
the first place.
So there is absolutely zero information in the link.
It's pure pointless noise.
> maintainer marks a reliable mapping of "this commit came from this thread" and
>
> It serves a real purpose.
It damn well does not serve any purpose at all, because there is
nothing useful there.
Your logic isn't logic - it's just empty words.
I can come up with tons of "reliable mappings". How about we make the
automation add the weather.com report for the weather in Kuala Lumpur
when b4 downloads the series? We could do that reliably too.
Notice how the reliability of something is entirely irrelevant. Just
because you can reliably automate it doesn't make it relevant
information.
And dammit, it's WORSE than worthless information. I _constantly_ end
up being disappointed by those useless links, and I've wasted time
following them in the hope of finding something useful.
So it's actually reliably NEGATIVE information that wastes peoples time.
> We cannot *reliably* map commits to patches.
What we care about is about things being *USEFUL*.
"Reliable" is entirely irrelevant if it's not useful.
Because reliable but useless is still useless.
And always will be.
So I'll take "Useful information that you might not always have",
every single time over "Useless, but always there".
Get it?
Linus
