[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b5daea1c-8172-93b6-0956-b31c3798d373@linux.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:31:33 -0700
From: Lakshmi Ramasubramanian <nramas@...ux.microsoft.com>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>,
Stefano Brivio <sbrivio@...hat.com>
Cc: Shreeya Patel <shreeya.patel23498@...il.com>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com,
daniel.baluta@...il.com, hverkuil@...all.nl,
Larry.Finger@...inger.net
Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] Staging: rtl8723bs: rtw_mlme: Remove
unnecessary conditions
On 3/12/2020 3:49 AM, Julia Lawall wrote:
Thanks for your input Julia and Stefano.
>> That's my general preference as well, but I can't find any point in the
>> "Describe your changes" section of submitting-patches.rst actually
>> defining the order. I wouldn't imply that from the sequence the steps
>> are presented in.
>>
>> In case it's possible to say everything with a single statement as
>> Shreeya did here, though, I guess that becomes rather a linguistic
>> factor, and I personally prefer the concise version here.
>
> https://kernelnewbies.org/PatchPhilosophy suggests:
>
> In patch descriptions and in the subject, it is common and preferable to
> use present-tense, imperative language. Write as if you are telling git
> what to do with your patch.
Use of imperative language is the approach I was thinking as well.
thanks,
-lakshmi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists