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: <adf12374-30e1-48bd-9f73-fabc5a8c2357@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:51:46 +0100
From: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] docs: process: submitting-patches: clarify
 imperative mood suggestion

Hello Jon,

On 30.12.24 19:40, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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.

Do you agree with the content of the patch in principle?

My changes were motivated by a disagreement about the necessity of having
to use the imperative mood throughout as I described in my cover letter,
so I still think think that a clarification is appropriate.

Would a v2 without the example at the end be acceptable?

Thanks,
Ahmad




> 
> Thanks,
> 
> jon
> 


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |