linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] gpio: updates for v5.15

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMRc=MdFCOiei0xxDuChfM0puu2XDkAKC9nsr+Cw5kyCFSjYZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 8 Sep 2021 09:26:17 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] gpio: updates for v5.15

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 9:36 PM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 1:36 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> >
> >  We also have a new/old GPIO driver for rockchip - this
> > one has been split out of the pinctrl driver, hence the pull from the
> > pinctrl tree you can see in my branch. Another merge in the tree is from Andy
> > for the intel drivers.
>
> I appreciate the heads-up, but just *look* at those merges.
>
> The intel GPIO merge at least talks about what it does, and looks
> sane. I'm not convinced that automated shortlogs are great, but
> whatever. The merge isn't bad.
>
> The rockchip one?
>
> All I can say is "WTF?"
>
> This is the complete and full commit message:
>
>     Merge branch 'ib-rockchip' of
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl
> into gpio/for-next
>
> what part of that screams "that's an acceptable commit message" to you?
>
> If the reason for that merge was that you want to have the current
> state so that you can split it up, then SAY SO, for chrissake!
>
> Not that useless commit message.
>
> Why do I have to tell this to people SEVERAL TIMES EVERY SINGLE MERGE WINDOW?
>
> Merge commits need explanations. They need explanations for why the
> merge is done, and what the merge pulls in. Not this "single line that
> doesn't explain anything".
>
> Dammit.
>
> I've pulled this, but I'm upset. I'm upset because I've told people
> literally hundreds of times by now. Merge commits are not some trivial
> thing that should be ignored. Quite the reverse. Merge commits are
> generally worth *more* explanation than normal commits, and should
> take *more* effort and thought than some random code commit that is
> obvious from just the code.
>
> Exactly because merges are *not* obvious from just looking at the
> code. It's not some one-liner that is self-explanatory.
>
> If you cannot be bothered to make proper merge messages, then don't do
> the merge. If y ou don't have a good reason for the merge that you can
> articulate, then don't do the merge. If you can't explain what you are
> merging, then don't do the merge.
>
> It really is that simple.
>
> I've pulled this, but I'm really fed up.
>
>             Linus

Hi Linus,

Thanks and sorry, noted for the future PRs.

Bartosz