[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170718125911.aw7syyjgbxbwv2za@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2017 13:59:11 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "ASoC: ux500: drop platform DAI assignments"
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:36:29PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 11:06:55AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Reverts shouldn't be special - they're just regular patches and should
> > have sensible changelogs like any others.
> Stating that you're reverting a commit and which commit that is is in
> the summary is arguable sensible (of course, you still also need further
> details in the commit message body itself describing why it was needed).
> Check the logs and you'll see that we have a ton of "Revert <reverted
> commit summary>" for various subsystems. In fact, it seems to be by far
> the most common summary for direct reverts.
The easily findable ones are, and it doesn't mean it's good practice -
reverts seem to attract particularly bad commit messages in general, not
just the subject lines, and I happen to have a pre-canned response for
this so...
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists