Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-8304-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2023 12:51:16 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Staging Drivers <linux-staging@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: "Link in bio" instead of Link:/Closes: trailer
Message-ID: <2023122112-rigging-january-7618@gregkh>
References: <ZYQeZjN_3bPOdKKf@archie.me>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZYQeZjN_3bPOdKKf@archie.me>

On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 06:15:50PM +0700, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Let's say that there is a content creator who submits her first kernel
> patch (touching drivers/staging/ of course to get her feet wet).
> The patch supposes to fix a reported bug, with appropriate Fixes: tag.
> But instead of using Link: or Closes: tag to the actual bug report in
> the patch, she instead writes "Link to the bug report in my bio", as
> it is the norm in social media world. Here in the context, her bio is
> LinkedIn profile (IDK if there is a way to add arbitrary link there).
> The link in LinkedIn profile, when clicked, will list many links
> (including her usual social media campaigns and of course the bug report),
> which makes reviewers confused about which link to the bug report she
> means. In some cases, she may disambiguate by saying in the patch,
> "Link to the bug report no. 99", to refer to the specific link number.
> 
> Is such practice a good idea?

No.