[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090415200724.GA12202@elte.hu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:07:24 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
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
* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >
> > "cleanup" is indeed the most common, as it is intended to signify a
> > trivial but nonzero code change. Whether or not it's *correct* is
> > another matter. "build fix" is valid and proper use: it tells that it
> > fixes a compilation error, which succinctly communicates both the
> > priority of the fix and how it needs to be validated.
>
> Why would that be "proper use"?
>
> Dammit, if the "build fix" is not obvious from the rest of the
> commit message, there's something wrong.
>
> And if it _is_ obvious, then the mechanical "Impact:" thing is
> pointless.
>
> In other words - in neither case does it actually help anything at
> all. It's only distracting noise.
I often skip "Impact: build fix" - when it's obvious from the
subject line or the first sentence of the commit - or if it can be
made obvious by changing the subject line or by changing the first
sentence of the commit.
I add it occasionally, when some other, higher priority principle
makes the changing of the subject line undesired.
For example, yesterday i did this commit:
| commit 27b19565fe4ca5b0e9d2ae98ce4b81ca728bf445
| Author: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
| Date: Tue Apr 14 11:03:12 2009 +0200
|
| lockdep: warn about lockdep disabling after kernel taint, fix
|
| Impact: build fix for Sparc and s390
|
| Stephen Rothwell reported that the Sparc build broke:
I added that 'build fix' impact line for two reasons:
Firstly, because the subject line was inherited from the buggy
commit and the new subject line got a ", fix" postfix. (This
convention seems rather useful at times in shortlogs, see below.)
Secondly, i also added the impact line because i wanted to specify
the architectures affected: Sparc and s390 - this fact was not
obvious from the bug report context which i wanted to preserve to
credit the bug reporter prominently (Stephen found the build error
on Sparc only).
Another option would have been to use this primary subject line
instead:
fix build error on Sparc and s390
But IMHO that's a worse subject line. It's more important to keep
the flow of the original change intact. The subject lines cluster up
better in shortlogs or in git logs:
$ gll include/linux/debug_locks.h
27b1956: lockdep: warn about lockdep disabling after kernel taint, fix
9eeba61: lockdep: warn about lockdep disabling after kernel taint
The connection between the two commits is plain obvious, at a
glance.
I could have concatenated the first subject line with the impact
information:
27b1956: lockdep: warn about lockdep disabling after kernel taint, fix build error on Sparc and s390
... but this is clearly over-long and dillutes the subject line with
'effect' information.
Ingo
--
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