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: <87sepwt2fe.fsf@trenco.lwn.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 07:57:57 -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, 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

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

> 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?

I will always consider a patch, but the example isn't the concern,
really.  The information you are trying to add to an already too-long
document is already present there; I think that repeating it, and making
this crucial document that much more unapproachable, would actively make
things worse.

Thanks,

jon