[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1001131633490.26518@ask.diku.dk>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:38:22 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: Németh Márton <nm127@...email.hu>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@....com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, cocci@...u.dk
Subject: Re: Changelog quality (was Re: [PATCH] uwb: make USB device id
constant)
> When you write a changelog, keep your audience in mind:
>
> - Developers, distributors, advanced users want to learn what a new
> release brings. (OK, this audience stops reading after the initial
> headline of a "make XYZ table constant" commit. Which just means
> that all the rest of the changelog is fluff that can be omitted.)
>
> - Developers, maintainers etc. want to understand years later why the
> code is how it is. (For them, a commit like that is sufficiently
> described by the headline as well.)
Not surprisingly, I don't agree about this one. I recall a series of
patches that said something like "used a script to change down/up to
mutexes". The script wasn't included, not all down/ups were changed to
mutexes, and in short there was no understandable trace of why the change
was made where it was. Perhaps that is a pathological example, but it is
not necessarily obvious in advance what needs precise documentation and
what does not.
julia
--
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