[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090415133255.b6a33bfe.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:32:55 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: hpa@...or.com, mingo@...e.hu, tglx@...utronix.de,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
davej@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Fix quilt merge error in acpi-cpufreq.c
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 12:43:02 -0700 (PDT)
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'm getting quite a few Impact:s now and I must say that the Impact:
line is always duplicative of the Subject:. Except in a few cases, and
that's because the Subject: sucked.
But I leave the Impact: lines in there because I'm nice.
--
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