[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <23823.1239895461@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 11:24:21 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hpa@...or.com,
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 Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:50:25 +0200, Ingo Molnar said:
> Something like:
Avoid the passive voice when feasible.
> The impact of this change is that the build is fixed.
Fix the build breakage caused by bad #include screwage.
> The impact of this change is that the code gets cleaner.
Neaten up the spaghetti code.
> The impact of this change is that the CPU does not overheat.
Prevent the CPU from overheating.
Good clear concise writing doesn't need an 'Impact:' to draw attention to it.
About the *only* use case that I've seen that actually makes *any* sense is
the *one* case where adding "fix on s390 and x86" to the original Subject:
line caused it to be overlong.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists