[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904151013260.4132@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: Fix quilt merge error in acpi-cpufreq.c
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> We are using impact lines to judge "practical impact of a commit".
> The shorter (while still correct and expressive), the better. We are
> trying to use it in well-defined cases - but not always.
The thing is, I've seen totally bogus "Impact:" statements.
It just makes things look more official, without actually guaranteeing
that it's any more correct. For example, I've seen impact statements to
the effect of "cleanup", when (a) it wasn't and (b) it did other things
too.
At that point, it's just distraction and wrong.
And in fact, "cleanup" seems to be the most common one. Along with other
totally useless ones like "fix build" or just "Fix" .
Gaah.
Doing a
git log -p --grep=Impact:.*lean
shows several "cleanuips" that are anything but. Those "cleanups" fix
build errors or actually change code. The "Impact:" statement is actively
misleading, adds absolutely _nothing_, and detracts from the real issue
and the real message.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists