linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] docs: process: submitting-patches: clarify imperative mood suggestion

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

Message-ID: <87r05p10bt.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2024 11:40:22 -0700
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
Cc: workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, Rob Herring
 <robh@...nel.org>, Frank Li <Frank.li@....com>, kernel@...gutronix.de,
 Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] docs: process: submitting-patches: clarify
 imperative mood suggestion

Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de> writes:

> While we expect commit message titles to use the imperative mood,
> it's ok for commit message bodies to first include a blurb describing
> the background of the patch, before delving into what's being done
> to address the situation.
>
> Make this clearer by adding a clarification after the imperative mood
> suggestion as well as listing Rob Herring's commit 52bb69be6790
> ("dt-bindings: ata: pata-common: Add missing additionalProperties on
> child nodes") as a good example commit message.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>

I'm rather less convinced about this one.  We already have a whole
section on describing changes.  Given that this crucial document is
already long and hard enough to get through, I don't really think that
adding some duplicate information - and the noise of more labels - is
going to improve things.

Thanks,

jon