[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090416071442.GA2351@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 09:14:42 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, 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
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>
> >> At least then it wouldn't break up the narrative, and it would
> >> kind of fit with all the other "tagged" lines.
> >
> > Yeah, that makes sense.
>
> Actually, there is one good thing about this. One of the things
> we've found useful is to have the maintainer add or edit Impact:
> lines. Putting them with the tags would make it more clear who did
> the impact assessment.
Ah, indeed - good point. There two other good things about moving
the impact line to the signoff section:
- We can actually add it every time - even if it repeats bits of
the subject line which would look weird if it was in the second
line. Right now with the impact line in a prominent place i often
feel reluctant to add an impact line when the subject line is
good enough to describe the expected risk/impact of a change.
- I can update my scripts to warn when i sign off on something with
no impact line. I.e. the "dont forget to assess impact" step
becomes even harder to flunk.
/me likes.
We then also need a good Documentation/impact-tag.txt description
about it, and list the principles and a few good and bad examples.
Would you like to write it up?
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