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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <cc7f07e2-437a-4be5-9e11-cd55d481fcb7@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 16:02:14 +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, 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 06.01.25 15:57, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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.

Ok, thanks for the prompt response.

Cheers,
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 |