"promising 'Link:' argument that I hoped would explain why this pointless commit exists, but AS ALWAYS that link only wasted my time by pointing to the same damn information that was already there."
"Stop this garbage already. Stop adding pointless Link arguments that waste people's time. Add the link if it has *ADDITIONAL* information. Dammit, I really hate those pointless links. I love seeing *useful* links, but 99% of the links I actually see just point to stupid, useless garbage, and it *ONLY* wastes my time. AGAIN."
"if you actually expect me to pull this, I want a real explanation and not a useless link. Yes, I'm grumpy. I feel like my main job -- really my only job -- is to try to make sense of pull requests, and that's why I absolutely detest these things that are automatically added and only make my job harder."
A lead Linux kernel maintainer rejects non-informative 'Link:' entries in patch submissions because they routinely duplicate existing information and fail to explain the reason for changes. Many of the worthless links originate from AI-driven development tools and automated workflows that append citations without adding context. These automatic links force reviewers to waste time chasing references that do not clarify faults or fixes. The maintainer requests that links be included only when they provide additional diagnostic data, error reports, tests, or other substantive evidence that justifies accepting a change and helps reviewers understand the intent and correctness of a patch.
Read at ZDNET
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]